CREATORS FRONT FOR DIVERSITY IN COMICS

[AGGIEZ]

This is insane, as the reason for this "recycling characters from the 30's-70's" is because THERE ARE NO YOUNGER READERS ENTERING AND IT IS ALL AGING FANBOYS BUYING THIS DREK. SO BY PERPETUATING THIS TREND AND MARKETING TO THESE SAME ADULT FANBOYS, YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!

 

 

So sayeth the King of aging fanboys!

 

Plus, when's the last time you even bought a new comic, Vince? ( i.e. take your idiotically self-righteous attitude and shove it )

 

 

That's the whole point nerdboy, I am not a fanboy and therefore I do not read Moderns with their idiotic, inbred stories about characters so old and decrepit, that many were passe when my Dad was a kid.

 

I have long since moved on to other literature that can offer challenging ideas and interesting characters and themes, much like Marvel comics did for me when I was 6-12 years old.

 

 

 

Then why do you drag your arrogant self-ritcheous arse over to these boards every day?!? Do you hang out at the Dora and Diego boards to try and flex your mental muscles... (thumbs u

[MrBedrock]

Imagine what it's numbers would be if all shops gave it a chance.

 

That statement makes absolutely no sense, since as you should know, the LCS *is* the customer. If these were returnable for credit, thus making the reader the end customer, I am certain that many shop owners would "give it a chance".

 

JC has a point....

 

Just to clarify, JC's point I'm referring to is the revamping of the distribution system, and the return of returnable books, not the other stuff....

 

I don't know if 100% returnability is the answer. There would be some inherent discount reduction with that. But some limited returnability on new projects would certainly be appreciated. It would allow retailers to take bigger chances on unknown or unproven titles.

[Scrooge]

Rich,

 

I am surprised by the numbers you are mentioning suggesting that most stores do not order outside of the big 2. I've seen quite a few stores over the years in OK, TX, WI, IL, MD, ... but I cannot remember but one or two that struck me as totally ordering nothing but the big 2 (and I know that you didn't mean it literally). Most had indies represented and if an indie book becomes popular or a critical success, I bet it would be stocked.

 

What I hate about some stores is that they might get a copy or two for pull-list clients but won't even order one extra for the shelf. Given that there is demand from their customers, why not give it a try. I am not saying to do it for all of these books but, using caution, there is room for extra sales. I know I have listened to retailers before and tried books strictly on their recommendation.

 

I try to support indies as much as I can if the budget will allow it ... but I have been burned more than once by projects that drag and never get out or anywhere and that generally sours my excitment. Yet, at times, I get pleasant surprises. I just got my copy of Red Moon that I ordered solely based on the solicit and it looks great! (even has a blurb from DarthCorgi on the back cover )

 

So, how pervasive really are those stores that do not even give indies a chance? Let alone non Big-2 books?

[DiceX]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach the man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

The problem is like this. You have a group of people that eat chicken. You have a couple of people that have tried snake meat and think it's the greatest thing in the world.

 

The snake eaters are so proud of their new found love that they try to get chicken eaters to try it. The chicken eaters are mindlessly nomming on their chicken and want nothing of the snake. Nom Nom NOM

 

The snake eaters have to switch gears and start telling the snake eaters about the evil chicken slayers and how their chickens are abused and full of illegal drugs, kind of like Lindsay Lohan. They tell them it's all "meat," but this is the superior "meat." The chicken eaters are still NOM NOM NOM.

 

The snake eaters start making fun of the chicken eaters because they're not "enlightened" like they are and how the poor snake killers can't make a living because they don't want to sell out and start killing chickens. They tell the chicken eaters that the snake killers deserve a piece of the chicken killer's pie and it's all the chicken eater's fault that the children of the snake killers have to watch them get screwed by the chicken killers while they count their money and play their flute.

 

NOM NOM NOM

 

End of silly rhetorical story.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is this...Yes, I agree that creator owned books are far and away superior to the mainstream books, but in order to gain a paying fan base they only have one option. They need to aim for the children. The only reason comics were such strong sellers to my age group is because KIDS WERE BUYING THEM, and likely the reason that so many of them are still reading.

 

Comic readers are creatures of habit. They love what they love. They do dabble in a few things different here and there, but their core stays the same. All because they were hooked on comics as a kid.

 

If the creator owned people want to save the hobby, they'll take aim at the kids. The market will continue to dwindle away to nothing in 10-20 years and all their creative juices will be wasted as they utter the words "do you want fries with that?" If they really are fans of the medium and want it to live, they will find a way to get their creations into the hands of children.

 

It's like inventing the greatest pair of roller skates in the world and not being able to get anyone to try it, then blaming the corporate sell-outs for keeping you down. There's only so much market to get. In order to get more, you have to find a way to create a market.

 

So "give a man a fish" by having the two big capitalist comic companies...I guess, give, some of their money to the creator owned titles. Perhaps they really want the big companies to let them print under their banner and retain the ownership rights to their creations. Either way, it's It is what it is. Tell you what...Once you break out and have the next TMNT, how about you pass off the rights to some other guy that doesn't have much. I'll say again just because.

 

OR "teach a man to fish" by the creator owned titles creating their own regenerating, renewing fan base and find a way, perhaps even recreate the medium, and put their creativity in the hands of children. But that would prevent them from having full freedom and being able to be as vulgar and graphic as they are accustomed. In that case, here's a nipple to plug your hole.

 

Those that "get it" will get it and those that "don't get it" will continue to not get it. I don't know why I bothered. Carry on with your bashing of "The Man."

 

 

[seanfingh]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach the man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

The problem is like this. You have a group of people that eat chicken. You have a couple of people that have tried snake meat and think it's the greatest thing in the world.

 

The snake eaters are so proud of their new found love that they try to get chicken eaters to try it. The chicken eaters are mindlessly nomming on their chicken and want nothing of the snake. Nom Nom NOM

 

The snake eaters have to switch gears and start telling the snake eaters about the evil chicken slayers and how their chickens are abused and full of illegal drugs, kind of like Lindsay Lohan. They tell them it's all "meat," but this is the superior "meat." The chicken eaters are still NOM NOM NOM.

 

The snake eaters start making fun of the chicken eaters because they're not "enlightened" like they are and how the poor snake killers can't make a living because they don't want to sell out and start killing chickens. They tell the chicken eaters that the snake killers deserve a piece of the chicken killer's pie and it's all the chicken eater's fault that the children of the snake killers have to watch them get screwed by the chicken killers while they count their money and play their flute.

 

NOM NOM NOM

 

End of silly rhetorical story.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is this...Yes, I agree that creator owned books are far and away superior to the mainstream books, but in order to gain a paying fan base they only have one option. They need to aim for the children. The only reason comics were such strong sellers to my age group is because KIDS WERE BUYING THEM, and likely the reason that so many of them are still reading.

 

Comic readers are creatures of habit. They love what they love. They do dabble in a few things different here and there, but their core stays the same. All because they were hooked on comics as a kid.

 

If the creator owned people want to save the hobby, they'll take aim at the kids. The market will continue to dwindle away to nothing in 10-20 years and all their creative juices will be wasted as they utter the words "do you want fries with that?" If they really are fans of the medium and want it to live, they will find a way to get their creations into the hands of children.

 

It's like inventing the greatest pair of roller skates in the world and not being able to get anyone to try it, then blaming the corporate sell-outs for keeping you down. There's only so much market to get. In order to get more, you have to find a way to create a market.

 

So "give a man a fish" by having the two big capitalist comic companies...I guess, give, some of their money to the creator owned titles. Perhaps they really want the big companies to let them print under their banner and retain the ownership rights to their creations. Either way, it's It is what it is. Tell you what...Once you break out and have the next TMNT, how about you pass off the rights to some other guy that doesn't have much. I'll say again just because.

 

OR "teach a man to fish" by the creator owned titles creating their own regenerating, renewing fan base and find a way, perhaps even recreate the medium, and put their creativity in the hands of children. But that would prevent them from having full freedom and being able to be as vulgar and graphic as they are accustomed. In that case, here's a nipple to plug your hole.

 

Those that "get it" will get it and those that "don't get it" will continue to not get it. I don't know why I bothered. Carry on with your bashing of "The Man."

 

 

You spent all day on a manifesto and this is what you came up with?

[DiceX]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach the man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

The problem is like this. You have a group of people that eat chicken. You have a couple of people that have tried snake meat and think it's the greatest thing in the world.

 

The snake eaters are so proud of their new found love that they try to get chicken eaters to try it. The chicken eaters are mindlessly nomming on their chicken and want nothing of the snake. Nom Nom NOM

 

The snake eaters have to switch gears and start telling the snake eaters about the evil chicken slayers and how their chickens are abused and full of illegal drugs, kind of like Lindsay Lohan. They tell them it's all "meat," but this is the superior "meat." The chicken eaters are still NOM NOM NOM.

 

The snake eaters start making fun of the chicken eaters because they're not "enlightened" like they are and how the poor snake killers can't make a living because they don't want to sell out and start killing chickens. They tell the chicken eaters that the snake killers deserve a piece of the chicken killer's pie and it's all the chicken eater's fault that the children of the snake killers have to watch them get screwed by the chicken killers while they count their money and play their flute.

 

NOM NOM NOM

 

End of silly rhetorical story.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is this...Yes, I agree that creator owned books are far and away superior to the mainstream books, but in order to gain a paying fan base they only have one option. They need to aim for the children. The only reason comics were such strong sellers to my age group is because KIDS WERE BUYING THEM, and likely the reason that so many of them are still reading.

 

Comic readers are creatures of habit. They love what they love. They do dabble in a few things different here and there, but their core stays the same. All because they were hooked on comics as a kid.

 

If the creator owned people want to save the hobby, they'll take aim at the kids. The market will continue to dwindle away to nothing in 10-20 years and all their creative juices will be wasted as they utter the words "do you want fries with that?" If they really are fans of the medium and want it to live, they will find a way to get their creations into the hands of children.

 

It's like inventing the greatest pair of roller skates in the world and not being able to get anyone to try it, then blaming the corporate sell-outs for keeping you down. There's only so much market to get. In order to get more, you have to find a way to create a market.

 

So "give a man a fish" by having the two big capitalist comic companies...I guess, give, some of their money to the creator owned titles. Perhaps they really want the big companies to let them print under their banner and retain the ownership rights to their creations. Either way, it's It is what it is. Tell you what...Once you break out and have the next TMNT, how about you pass off the rights to some other guy that doesn't have much. I'll say again just because.

 

OR "teach a man to fish" by the creator owned titles creating their own regenerating, renewing fan base and find a way, perhaps even recreate the medium, and put their creativity in the hands of children. But that would prevent them from having full freedom and being able to be as vulgar and graphic as they are accustomed. In that case, here's a nipple to plug your hole.

 

Those that "get it" will get it and those that "don't get it" will continue to not get it. I don't know why I bothered. Carry on with your bashing of "The Man."

 

 

You spent all day on a manifesto and this is what you came up with?

 

No, Scooter. I didn't work today. I've been napping and watching TV.

 

 

[Stronguy]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach the man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

The problem is like this. You have a group of people that eat chicken. You have a couple of people that have tried snake meat and think it's the greatest thing in the world.

 

The snake eaters are so proud of their new found love that they try to get chicken eaters to try it. The chicken eaters are mindlessly nomming on their chicken and want nothing of the snake. Nom Nom NOM

 

The snake eaters have to switch gears and start telling the snake eaters about the evil chicken slayers and how their chickens are abused and full of illegal drugs, kind of like Lindsay Lohan. They tell them it's all "meat," but this is the superior "meat." The chicken eaters are still NOM NOM NOM.

 

The snake eaters start making fun of the chicken eaters because they're not "enlightened" like they are and how the poor snake killers can't make a living because they don't want to sell out and start killing chickens. They tell the chicken eaters that the snake killers deserve a piece of the chicken killer's pie and it's all the chicken eater's fault that the children of the snake killers have to watch them get screwed by the chicken killers while they count their money and play their flute.

 

NOM NOM NOM

 

End of silly rhetorical story.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is this...Yes, I agree that creator owned books are far and away superior to the mainstream books, but in order to gain a paying fan base they only have one option. They need to aim for the children. The only reason comics were such strong sellers to my age group is because KIDS WERE BUYING THEM, and likely the reason that so many of them are still reading.

 

Comic readers are creatures of habit. They love what they love. They do dabble in a few things different here and there, but their core stays the same. All because they were hooked on comics as a kid.

 

If the creator owned people want to save the hobby, they'll take aim at the kids. The market will continue to dwindle away to nothing in 10-20 years and all their creative juices will be wasted as they utter the words "do you want fries with that?" If they really are fans of the medium and want it to live, they will find a way to get their creations into the hands of children.

 

It's like inventing the greatest pair of roller skates in the world and not being able to get anyone to try it, then blaming the corporate sell-outs for keeping you down. There's only so much market to get. In order to get more, you have to find a way to create a market.

 

So "give a man a fish" by having the two big capitalist comic companies...I guess, give, some of their money to the creator owned titles. Perhaps they really want the big companies to let them print under their banner and retain the ownership rights to their creations. Either way, it's It is what it is. Tell you what...Once you break out and have the next TMNT, how about you pass off the rights to some other guy that doesn't have much. I'll say again just because.

 

OR "teach a man to fish" by the creator owned titles creating their own regenerating, renewing fan base and find a way, perhaps even recreate the medium, and put their creativity in the hands of children. But that would prevent them from having full freedom and being able to be as vulgar and graphic as they are accustomed. In that case, here's a nipple to plug your hole.

 

Those that "get it" will get it and those that "don't get it" will continue to not get it. I don't know why I bothered. Carry on with your bashing of "The Man."

 

 

You had me at

[RockMyAmadeus]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach the man to fish and you feed him for life.

 

The problem is like this. You have a group of people that eat chicken. You have a couple of people that have tried snake meat and think it's the greatest thing in the world.

 

The snake eaters are so proud of their new found love that they try to get chicken eaters to try it. The chicken eaters are mindlessly nomming on their chicken and want nothing of the snake. Nom Nom NOM

 

The snake eaters have to switch gears and start telling the snake eaters about the evil chicken slayers and how their chickens are abused and full of illegal drugs, kind of like Lindsay Lohan. They tell them it's all "meat," but this is the superior "meat." The chicken eaters are still NOM NOM NOM.

 

The snake eaters start making fun of the chicken eaters because they're not "enlightened" like they are and how the poor snake killers can't make a living because they don't want to sell out and start killing chickens. They tell the chicken eaters that the snake killers deserve a piece of the chicken killer's pie and it's all the chicken eater's fault that the children of the snake killers have to watch them get screwed by the chicken killers while they count their money and play their flute.

 

NOM NOM NOM

 

End of silly rhetorical story.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is this...Yes, I agree that creator owned books are far and away superior to the mainstream books, but in order to gain a paying fan base they only have one option. They need to aim for the children. The only reason comics were such strong sellers to my age group is because KIDS WERE BUYING THEM, and likely the reason that so many of them are still reading.

 

Comic readers are creatures of habit. They love what they love. They do dabble in a few things different here and there, but their core stays the same. All because they were hooked on comics as a kid.

 

If the creator owned people want to save the hobby, they'll take aim at the kids. The market will continue to dwindle away to nothing in 10-20 years and all their creative juices will be wasted as they utter the words "do you want fries with that?" If they really are fans of the medium and want it to live, they will find a way to get their creations into the hands of children.

 

It's like inventing the greatest pair of roller skates in the world and not being able to get anyone to try it, then blaming the corporate sell-outs for keeping you down. There's only so much market to get. In order to get more, you have to find a way to create a market.

 

So "give a man a fish" by having the two big capitalist comic companies...I guess, give, some of their money to the creator owned titles. Perhaps they really want the big companies to let them print under their banner and retain the ownership rights to their creations. Either way, it's It is what it is. Tell you what...Once you break out and have the next TMNT, how about you pass off the rights to some other guy that doesn't have much. I'll say again just because.

 

OR "teach a man to fish" by the creator owned titles creating their own regenerating, renewing fan base and find a way, perhaps even recreate the medium, and put their creativity in the hands of children. But that would prevent them from having full freedom and being able to be as vulgar and graphic as they are accustomed. In that case, here's a nipple to plug your hole.

 

Those that "get it" will get it and those that "don't get it" will continue to not get it. I don't know why I bothered. Carry on with your bashing of "The Man."

 

 

Other than your "aim them (solely) at children" point, I agree 100%.

 

(thumbs u

 

NOM.

[500Club]

It's the dilemma that faces retailers every day, every week, every month (when we fill out those order forms). How can we order in such a way that we can successfully capture new readers while still satisfying our existing customers? How can we successfully support new projects which might appeal to new people while still adequately supporting those titles which continuously sell, generally to the same people? How can we establish ourselves as shops in such a way that we are not reliant on the two big publishers, but instead use Marvel and DC's success to grow our business to the point that we can increase exposure for new product?

 

It is hard to just say, "hey, try this new thing" to either a reader or a retailer and make it magically happen. Ultimately creator owned comic publishers have to convince retailers to expand their horizons when ordering, after all retailers are the publisher's actual customers (we buy these things non-returnable). And I am assuming that this short film was produced with the annual Comics-Pro retailers summit as the intended audience. It is a message that most of the shop owners will outwardly wildly support. But the true test will be to see how many of us (retailers) will actually go back to the office, increase orders of new creator owned titles, and formulate a marketing strategy to support them.

 

The big catch-22.

 

It's the retailers who have to stick their necks out by ordering indies for the racks, unsure of whether their customer base will buy. It's doubly hard for the small stores, where margins can take a hit with only one or two poor ordering decisions.

[comix4fun]

I've read titles like The Goon and other quality "indies" over the years. They're often very well-drawn and well-written, and many of the people who produce them clearly have an abiding love for comic book entertainment. But there's also a lot of turgid, overly violent, doom-and-gloom-besotted, semi-pornographic, nihilistic, solipsistic, rambling, monochromatic, or otherwise unreadable "creative writing 101" junk on those indie racks, too.

 

You forgot "whiny, melodramatic, awkward "woe is me" autobiographical" books. I'll give any Indy a second look as long as it's not autobiographical.

 

 

 

Autobiographical, done right, is some of the best stuff comics has to offer....ala "Blankets".

 

Or it could be just awful like "The Silver Age".

 

Not autobiographical, but a great character study, is "Asterios Polyp" it's one of the greatest works of sequential art and story I have read, perhaps ever. It's also the kind of thing that Marvel or DC would not touch with a 10 foot pole.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The real answer is simple: to break the stranglehold of whatever "evil corporation" is strangling you, you must be...must be.....far and away so superior in quality that the public simply has no choice but to jump ship and consume whatever it is that you're offering.

 

"A little better" will achieve nothing, because people are, again, creatures of habit, and brand name is a powerful magnet.

 

"A lot better" will achieve little, for the same reasons.

 

But if one is far and away superior than anything and EVERYTHING else out there, your audience will find you.

 

Artists need to do what they do because it's what they must do. Not because someone else will affirm it. And they must NOT ccompromise or conform to what the masses think they should be doing. Mediocrity always wins commercially, but no committee on earth ever created a masterpiece. Ever.

 

Consider George Lucas. Outsider, bucked the studio system, fought against it, and produced a single masterpiece: Star Wars. It was so far and away superior to everything contemporary that it became part of the national psyche, and rightfully so. It is a masterpiece, and created an entire genre within the general artform of film, the space opera.

 

True works of art don't just define genres...they create new ones. Star Wars was so much better than anything else at the time that the public simply had no choice but to choose to see it. And it achieved that by being unencumbered by and beholden to no one and nothing in execution.

 

Unfortunately, George Lucas is not an artist, and loved money more than art. He became "the evil corporation" that he so much despised, and in the process, utterly trashed and repudiated his masterpiece. He chose money and mediocrity over art. He's a rich, rich man...but the world will not think very kindly of him in remembrance.

 

True story.

 

 

[jools&jim]

 

But didn't the non-returnable direct market essentially make the indies possible--or at least more possible, and certainly more potentially lucrative--in the first place (i.e., by allocating the lion's share of risk to retailers rather than to the publishers and distributors)? Unfortunately, that same arrangement also restricted their availability to the fringes of a superhero-saturated niche market, and to some extent encouraged (or at least supported) more adult-oriented content, which couldn't or wouldn't have been sold in more mainstream outlets in the first place.

 

So...yeah, it's a flawed system. But without it, we wouldn't be talking about "indies" at all...

[MrBedrock]

Rich,

 

I am surprised by the numbers you are mentioning suggesting that most stores do not order outside of the big 2.

There is a quietly discussed and sobering factoid that 3% of the existing comic shops account for over 90% of orders on non-Marvel/DC product. That translates to basically one single brick and mortar shop in each major city providing 100% of the exposure that these titles can generate.

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

But didn't the non-returnable direct market essentially make the indies possible--or at least more possible, and certainly more potentially lucrative--in the first place (i.e., by allocating the lion's share of risk to retailers rather than to the publishers and distributors)? Unfortunately, that same arrangement also restricted their availability to the fringes of a superhero-saturated niche market, and to some extent encouraged (or at least supported) more adult-oriented content, which couldn't or wouldn't have been sold in more mainstream outlets in the first place.

 

So...yeah, it's a flawed system. But without it, we wouldn't be talking about "indies" at all...

 

Yes, the direct market saved the industry in the late 70's/early 80's, but the world has changed so much since then, and what was its salvation then has become its garrotte now. While comics needed the "studio system" in the olden days, now that self-publication is easier than ever, getting these in the hands of the customer base is also exponentially easier.

 

Think of creating a comic series that would appeal to Starbucks customers...and then creating a marketing plan with Starbucks to have it at point of purchase all over the world.

 

It's time to consider other means, especially means that worked before.

[MrBedrock]

The real answer is simple: to break the stranglehold of whatever "evil corporation" is strangling you, you must be...must be.....far and away so superior in quality that the public simply has no choice but to jump ship and consume whatever it is that you're offering.

 

"A little better" will achieve nothing, because people are, again, creatures of habit, and brand name is a powerful magnet.

 

"A lot better" will achieve little, for the same reasons.

 

But if one is far and away superior than anything and EVERYTHING else out there, your audience will find you.

 

Artists need to do what they do because it's what they must do. Not because someone else will affirm it. And they must NOT ccompromise or conform to what the masses think they should be doing. Mediocrity always wins commercially, but no committee on earth ever created a masterpiece. Ever.

 

Consider George Lucas. Outsider, bucked the studio system, fought against it, and produced a single masterpiece: Star Wars. It was so far and away superior to everything contemporary that it became part of the national psyche, and rightfully so. It is a masterpiece, and created an entire genre within the general artform of film, the space opera.

 

True works of art don't just define genres...they create new ones. Star Wars was so much better than anything else at the time that the public simply had no choice but to choose to see it. And it achieved that by being unencumbered by and beholden to no one and nothing in execution.

 

Unfortunately, George Lucas is not an artist, and loved money more than art. He became "the evil corporation" that he so much despised, and in the process, utterly trashed and repudiated his masterpiece. He chose money and mediocrity over art. He's a rich, rich man...but the world will not think very kindly of him in remembrance.

 

True story.

 

The problem with your analogy is that Star Wars was shown in thousands of theaters world wide. No matter how incredible an Indy book is the system is set up such that a small shop, with no previous history of ordering outside of the big two, blindly ordering two or more months ahead, taking 100% of the risk on non-returnable product, will not ever make that book available to it's customer base. That is a tough nut to crack.

[comix4fun]

The real answer is simple: to break the stranglehold of whatever "evil corporation" is strangling you, you must be...must be.....far and away so superior in quality that the public simply has no choice but to jump ship and consume whatever it is that you're offering.

 

"A little better" will achieve nothing, because people are, again, creatures of habit, and brand name is a powerful magnet.

 

"A lot better" will achieve little, for the same reasons.

 

But if one is far and away superior than anything and EVERYTHING else out there, your audience will find you.

 

Artists need to do what they do because it's what they must do. Not because someone else will affirm it. And they must NOT ccompromise or conform to what the masses think they should be doing. Mediocrity always wins commercially, but no committee on earth ever created a masterpiece. Ever.

 

Consider George Lucas. Outsider, bucked the studio system, fought against it, and produced a single masterpiece: Star Wars. It was so far and away superior to everything contemporary that it became part of the national psyche, and rightfully so. It is a masterpiece, and created an entire genre within the general artform of film, the space opera.

 

True works of art don't just define genres...they create new ones. Star Wars was so much better than anything else at the time that the public simply had no choice but to choose to see it. And it achieved that by being unencumbered by and beholden to no one and nothing in execution.

 

Unfortunately, George Lucas is not an artist, and loved money more than art. He became "the evil corporation" that he so much despised, and in the process, utterly trashed and repudiated his masterpiece. He chose money and mediocrity over art. He's a rich, rich man...but the world will not think very kindly of him in remembrance.

 

True story.

 

The problem with your analogy is that Star Wars was shown in thousands of theaters world wide. No matter how incredible an Indy book is the system is set up such that a small shop, with no previous history of ordering outside of the big two, blindly ordering two or more months ahead, taking 100% of the risk on non-returnable product, will not ever make that book available to it's customer base. That is a tough nut to crack.

 

 

And Star Wars was marketed, sold and distributed by a major US Studio.

 

That's akin to a great creator owned book getting a full court press of coverage and hype from Marvel. They don't do that unless they own it. So there's no way to make the analogy a perfect match.

 

There's no 20th Century Fox to take that Indy Book and turn it into Star Wars with all the exposure from day one.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The real answer is simple: to break the stranglehold of whatever "evil corporation" is strangling you, you must be...must be.....far and away so superior in quality that the public simply has no choice but to jump ship and consume whatever it is that you're offering.

 

"A little better" will achieve nothing, because people are, again, creatures of habit, and brand name is a powerful magnet.

 

"A lot better" will achieve little, for the same reasons.

 

But if one is far and away superior than anything and EVERYTHING else out there, your audience will find you.

 

Artists need to do what they do because it's what they must do. Not because someone else will affirm it. And they must NOT ccompromise or conform to what the masses think they should be doing. Mediocrity always wins commercially, but no committee on earth ever created a masterpiece. Ever.

 

Consider George Lucas. Outsider, bucked the studio system, fought against it, and produced a single masterpiece: Star Wars. It was so far and away superior to everything contemporary that it became part of the national psyche, and rightfully so. It is a masterpiece, and created an entire genre within the general artform of film, the space opera.

 

True works of art don't just define genres...they create new ones. Star Wars was so much better than anything else at the time that the public simply had no choice but to choose to see it. And it achieved that by being unencumbered by and beholden to no one and nothing in execution.

 

Unfortunately, George Lucas is not an artist, and loved money more than art. He became "the evil corporation" that he so much despised, and in the process, utterly trashed and repudiated his masterpiece. He chose money and mediocrity over art. He's a rich, rich man...but the world will not think very kindly of him in remembrance.

 

True story.

 

The problem with your analogy is that Star Wars was shown in thousands of theaters world wide. No matter how incredible an Indy book is the system is set up such that a small shop, with no previous history of ordering outside of the big two, blindly ordering two or more months ahead, taking 100% of the risk on non-returnable product, will not ever make that book available to it's customer base. That is a tough nut to crack.

 

Not true.

 

Star Wars opened in 43...yes, that's correct, 43...theatres on May 25, 1977. At the time, most theatres were one screens, or 2 screens, or drive-ins. "Megaplexes" didn't exist.

 

The MOST theatres it was shown at domestically in its first run was 1,096, 13 weeks after it debuted.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=starwars4.htm

 

And by outside the system, I MEAN outside the system. It's great if comics stores want to carry books, but with the Diamond monopoly, it's just not going to work well.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The real answer is simple: to break the stranglehold of whatever "evil corporation" is strangling you, you must be...must be.....far and away so superior in quality that the public simply has no choice but to jump ship and consume whatever it is that you're offering.

 

"A little better" will achieve nothing, because people are, again, creatures of habit, and brand name is a powerful magnet.

 

"A lot better" will achieve little, for the same reasons.

 

But if one is far and away superior than anything and EVERYTHING else out there, your audience will find you.

 

Artists need to do what they do because it's what they must do. Not because someone else will affirm it. And they must NOT ccompromise or conform to what the masses think they should be doing. Mediocrity always wins commercially, but no committee on earth ever created a masterpiece. Ever.

 

Consider George Lucas. Outsider, bucked the studio system, fought against it, and produced a single masterpiece: Star Wars. It was so far and away superior to everything contemporary that it became part of the national psyche, and rightfully so. It is a masterpiece, and created an entire genre within the general artform of film, the space opera.

 

True works of art don't just define genres...they create new ones. Star Wars was so much better than anything else at the time that the public simply had no choice but to choose to see it. And it achieved that by being unencumbered by and beholden to no one and nothing in execution.

 

Unfortunately, George Lucas is not an artist, and loved money more than art. He became "the evil corporation" that he so much despised, and in the process, utterly trashed and repudiated his masterpiece. He chose money and mediocrity over art. He's a rich, rich man...but the world will not think very kindly of him in remembrance.

 

True story.

 

The problem with your analogy is that Star Wars was shown in thousands of theaters world wide. No matter how incredible an Indy book is the system is set up such that a small shop, with no previous history of ordering outside of the big two, blindly ordering two or more months ahead, taking 100% of the risk on non-returnable product, will not ever make that book available to it's customer base. That is a tough nut to crack.

 

 

And Star Wars was marketed, sold and distributed by a major US Studio.

 

That's akin to a great creator owned book getting a full court press of coverage and hype from Marvel. They don't do that unless they own it. So there's no way to make the analogy a perfect match.

 

There's no 20th Century Fox to take that Indy Book and turn it into Star Wars with all the exposure from day one.

 

And 20th Century Fox nearly dropped the project in early 1977 because they and Lucas thought it wasn't going to be very successful....there was no way in hell that 20th gave Star Wars a "full court press of coverage and hype."

 

Like I said...it debuted in 43 theatres.

 

Think about that number.

 

If it had been a piece of junk, it would have suffered the same fate as thousands of other films: it would have quietly vanished as if it never existed.

[MrBedrock]

A little anecdote...Terry Moore, who created Strangers in Paradise and Echo lives here in Houston. To give some background, Strangers is one of, if not the top selling creator owned books of the last decade. In the US it had at its peak a monthly sales total in the thirty to forty thousand range. That is about where the lowest Marvel or DC book fits on the monthly charts.The various Strangers in Paradise Collections have been translated into approximately forty different languages world wide. So anyway, a couple of years ago, as one of the events leading up to our 20th Anniversary celebration we had Terry in the Westheimer store for a signing. We have had a long history with Terry, got a nice plug in his first collected volume, had many a dinner together to discuss the business, and we've carted his stuff to shows all over the place.

But we had not had him for an in-store guest signing in over ten years. And here is why...

 

We had about 100 people show up. We were ecstatic with that. Then Terry mentioned that he had just returned from Germany and had over 1500 fans show up there.

 

Germans also love David Hasselhoff, but I digress...

[mpt6974]

Pretty good article that relates to this from Image's publsiher Eric Stephenson:

 

http://www.multiversitycomics.com/2011/01/multiversity-comics-presents-eric.html

 

Thought this excerpt was good :

Where do you see growth coming from in 2011?

 

A few different places, really, but for the most part, I think there's a vast and growing readership that's just plain tired of being force-fed endless events and regurgitated ideas. People would prefer one good comic featuring his or her favorite character instead of four or five that clearly exist just to make money. The whole "this is a movie, so let's whore the concept out as much as humanly possible so we can make a huge cash grab" thing is pretty transparent at this point and I don't think people like being treated like marks. I think you can look at some of the market share shifts over the last year and see that readers are moving away from that sort of thing, not falling for those old tricks anymore, and they're starting to look for books that deliver good stories and interesting ideas without breaking the bank.

 

I think the nature of the overall readership is changing, too. Readers who get into comics through something like Watchmen or Scott Pilgrim or The Walking Dead aren't necessarily going to be drawn to standard superhero comics. There are people coming to comics through the increased exposure the medium is receiving in the media, and I think they favor more diversity than old guard fans. Image isn't the only publisher that stands to benefit from that kind of shift, but it's definitely something we're very conscious of here.

 

It's how I got into the comic scene - my wife thinks I'm crazy because I didn't grow up with comics, but TWD changed it all for me.