Evolution of Comics

Entertainment is changing, which ironically is nothing new. In my opinion there is a move towards packaging serialized stories into larger volumes that could otherwise be digested in the original individual packets for nothing or more cheaply. So why is there a move towards paying more for something that we once received for free or for a little? It's because it offers immediacy to the medium and a perceived value in quantity.

Over the past decade TV shows have been bundled up into individual seasons and sold on DVD. This has revived some TV shows, most notably Family Guy after its third season cancellation, while enlarging the popularity of others but failing to revive them, most notably for Firefly. The packaging of these DVD sets have also become smaller over the years, taking up less space on the bookshelf so that more can be purchased. These sets are popular because they allow a viewer to watch an entire season commercial free, at their own convenience and most importantly (but related) allows the viewer to watch an entire season at once, as opposed to watching it once a week over the course of 6-8 months. Further, this lets people watch shows that they were not able to watch on TV because they were broadcasted in different countries (such as many of the BBC programs) or were shown on higher tier cable networks like HBO (thinking of True Blood, Dexter, etc.).

Most recently, the introduction of the PVR allows viewers to record TV shows and watch them at their discretion while skipping the commercials. While a PVR has a limit on how many shows can be saved at one time, excluding the ability to watch an entire season of one show, it does provide the viewer control over 'when' to watch and to watch 'multiple' episodes at once. In hand with the PVR comes the internet which allows viewers to download or stream episodes, providing the viewer with the same power as is found in the PVR while also providing a greater number of episodes to watch, similar to the DVD sets of a show's entire season.

The point is that viewers are gaining greater control (empowerment) over how they are being entertained. This is not a new revelation as many other people have previously pointed this out (and probably more concisely). What may not have been called attention to is that comic books are also moving in this direction and will continue to do so in the next ten years.

Trade paperbacks (tpb) have been around since the 1970's. These early trade tpb's were comic books (some call them graphic novels) that featured one long comic story with sometimes more adult themes. This style of tpb has continued today, for instance my earlier post about the Swallow Me Whole tpb (http://pickledpeanuts.blogspot.com/2010/09/swallow-me-whole.html). In the late 1980's and early 1990's, tpb began featuring a collection of comic stories that were originally published individually on a monthly basis (eg. Superman issues #14-48). This is similar if not the same to how TV shows are now sold in DVD sets. This style of tpb became increasingly popular as many comic readers could not afford to purchase individual comics (tpb's are generally cheaper) or could not be bothered to return to a comic store on a weekly or monthly basis. Tpb's were also great for they interested readers who normally did not read comics. The tpb seemed like a more authentic and adult form of literature because it came in a book format.

Today, tpb's continue to be popular and the style of tpb's continue to change. The subject matter ranges widely and are now sold in places other than comic stores such as Chapters (always a good sign when a market expands). The medium that tpb's are being sold and distributed has also changed in the last 5-10 years -they've gone digital. Marvel comics has perhaps done the most to encourage the evolution of tpb's with their foray into the digital realm. Tpb's are currently being sold on DVD's, where individual frames and pages are shown on the screen. This creates a sense of movement, although I believe this moves the original medium of comic away from its original form of 'sequential art' and into a grey area between animation and sequential art. Sound effects are also often added to the tpb DVD's.

A second way tpb's have entered the digital age is through the internet and iPhone, iPod and iPad applications. Individual comic stories and tpb's are being digitized and then offered for download onto these popular devices where they can be read at any time and place (for instance Marvel's Spider-Woman series is featured on the iTunes store). Much like the earlier paper form of the tpb, this also presents comics in a more (perceived) legitimate context where society may not automatically consider it children's fair because now it is being read on something socially acceptable and labeled 'cool'. I find this very exciting!

I feel that comics will continue down this path of packaging long stories in small packages to be sold in different mediums. The future looks bright but has its pitfalls. One pitfall is that the audience who purchases the comics in a digital, compiled form, may not be drawn into the comic shops to purchase the original monthly and paper forms. This leaves the audience that does frequent the comic shop at a stagnant level while the digital audience grows. This situation has pros and cons.

Another aspect is that the longer and compiled tpb forms will continue in their popularity and force some comic properties to only be sold in such a form, otherwise they will be faced with their newfound readers leaving that property because it takes too long for the tpb (paper or digital) to be released. A solution to this, and perhaps something we will see in comics, is that comic properties like the X-Men and Batman will be created by a larger team of artists. These properties will be treated much like a TV show where a gang of writers will work on multiple scripts and a gang of artists will bust out the art. The combined effort of these individuals will produce a large volume of stories in a short amount of time, satisfying the demand of the audience. However, the rub is that the quality of the stories may diminish for the stories and art will be rushed. Also, gone will be the day of a single writer /artist with a single vision such as the legendary Frank Miller run on Batman in the 1980's or Neal Adams on the Green Arrow in the 1970's.

Needless to say, the past decade has shown that comics are not dying, they are evolving. The process might be slow and rough, but it is undergoing. I am excited to see where this leads but am also pessimistic by what might be lost.

Some sources:
Longbox Digital Comics image from: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21693
Captain America Digital comic for the PSP image from: http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/digital-comics-psp/2217058/#/0
Comic Book Evolution image from: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45773

A Legendary Rant by Kevin Smith

Something motivational for today. Considering it's New Year's Eve it seems appropriate. So here I've copied out a rant that Kevin Smith posted on Twitter a few weeks back. This rant is a rare bird and I encourage everyone to follow him on twitter (@thatkevinsmith) or check out his free smodcasts from where this tweet was copied from (http://smodcast.com/home.html).

Smith is a large man to say the least and has been loosing weight since October, which I believe began right after he finished filming his latest movie Red State. Over the summer he was dejected from a plane because the flight attendants believed him to be too large to fly, which was horse shit. He has since been on the defensive about his weight but likewise advocating a healthier lifestyle that included copious amounts of sex, pot, and cigarettes.

Now for his rant:

Dec. 30th, 2010

We’re all too fat, sir.

But weight loss, while a frustrating proposition, is the key - because when you’re thin, you’re healthy, & nobody bothers you - so life’s always a non-caloric-cupcake-&-firework party!

However, having met one or two thin people (or “normies”) in my life, I’ve been able to glean that it’s also not always a picnic being skinny. So if life blows for fat and thin people sometimes, then it’s all relative - except for your packaging.

So remove the whole “IF I CAN JUST GET THIN, EVERYTHING WILL BE BETTER!” bullshit and approach the weight loss with a realistic perspective: losing weight will solely make you thinner & heart-healthier. Other than that, it’s no different from being thin - except all the sweating & getting a hard-on for Devil Dogs.

So when the fantasy factor of weight loss is eliminated (fact: your life may stay the exact same & your problems may not suddenly evaporate), you’re left with un-hyped, non-augmented truth: when you lose weight, you’re doing just that: losing weight.

Now - if you need to attach drama to weight-loss, as a sort of motivator, there’s no better gas in the tank than the simple desire to shut motherfuckers the fuck up. S’fun to watch the endlessly opinionated suddenly choke on a reality they’d never prepared for: the mutable you.

Folks wanna cast you in a walk-on role in the movie of their lives: they wannna minimize you to one aspect/role/title that their self-esteem can handle. Don’t settle for being a last-billed extra in some other prick’s feature; be the goddamned STAR of your OWN movie. The best revenge is when folks who’ve tagged & bagged you suddenly realize their true roles: they amount to little more than a footnote in the film of YOUR life. Then? #CuttingRoomFloor

Now, I’m not spectral communicator & I don’t claim to congress with the dead. But I doubt ANY of this can be accomplished from the grave.

As far as I know, you get one life. Milk it, sir. Chocolate-milk it, if you’ve gotta, but milk it for all it’s worth (without harming others). Treat yourself like you treat the things you own: bag & board your life & put it somewhere fuckers can’t bend your pages, maybe even framed.

But whatever you do, don’t even whimsy about ending shit. It all ends soon enough, without our input or agreement.

Drop a little weight and it’ll be easier to drop a little more. For me it’s more about portion control: I’m an American, so everything I eat is like four feet tall. On Weight Watchers, I’ve been rocking the Smart Ones meals, which I’m using to train myself to remember that two boxes of cereal in one sitting is not a meal; it’s a freak show that belongs on the boardwalk at Coney Island, in the summertime.

Make the portions smaller. It’s the thing no chubby wants to hear, but it’s the only path: eat less & exercise. I’ve been doing that since November first and I’ve lost 40 pounds now. And if I can do it, ANYBODY can do it. I’m the laziest, fattest slob I know. My gut has a gut. But I’ll go Christian-Bale-In-The-Machinist before I give this wicked, wicked world one more second of my life any earlier than I’ve gotta…

Batman watched his parents get killed and rather than crumble in defeat, he opted to stay above ground to make sure the same didn’t happen to anyone else. Granted, Batman is fictional… but then, so are most of the people you look up to. They’re fictional, too: you don’t see their struggles, you only see their wins. Life is a zero-sum game: there has never been a winner.

Find a role model: someone who’s done this life in a way that inspires you and use the lessons of their life to enrich your own (hands off Gretzky, Lunchbox: he’s mine). But find a role model, not a hero. Learn from others but be your own hero.

Long story short: next meal, eat less.

Meal after that? Eat half.

Leave food behind. Start like that.

In a week or two, step it up a little: go out walking. Bring an iPod (I recommend loading with some SModcast Network shows). Walk for 10 minutes. Then 20. Then 30. Increase weekly.

A week will go by. Then a month - at the end of which, you’ll have lost some weight. It may not be a breathtaking amount, but it’ll be enough to make you wanna lose a little more, maybe. And then a little more.

But you can do this. Just know you’re going to do it ALONE - and that’s okay. This is YOUR journey. From time to time, even when nobody else understands why, we have to act against their grain - to get shit done.

Expect some taunts and teases from the swine. I suggest finding a somewhat less-traveled road (but always let someone know where you’re going); and to paraphrase Teddy, a walking stick’s good for balance and for making fucktards think twice about shooting their mouths off.

So no more of this suicide bullshit: how the fuck do you know you’re not the one who’s supposed to cure cancer? Or change shit? Or inspire the one who will change shit? The flick has three acts, sir; stay above ground - or you’ll never know what was possible; just what wasn’t…

So today, eat only HALF that Ho-Ho. All this week, eat only half the Ho-Ho. Next week, it’s Anti-Claus time: meaning NO Ho-Ho. Ho-Ho’s won’t vanish in our absence: there will always be Ho-Ho’s. Months from next week, maybe years even? You can have another Ho-Ho - after which, you may mutter to yourself “Wasn’t worth it…” because that Ho-Ho becomes an hour walk to even make a dent in the caloric burning department.

We’ll lose weight, @thedarkknight98 - that’s easy. Much harder to lose: the yapping, negative swine.

Like herpes, they’ll be with us always.

A Theater Revolution Cont.

Here are two suggestions for how to improve movie going experiences. The first is to have theaters reward and encourage respectful behavior. This can be accomplished through creating a rewards program where respectful movie goers obtain a card similar to the Sceneit card. This card is then used to purchase tickets to movie screenings that are advertised as a zero tolerance area for talking and other disruptive behavior. To purchase said tickets you must have this card, and this card can be revoked if it is found that you have abused the policies such as no talking.

The second suggestion is an option if movie theaters show no interest in improving the movie going experience. This is where we rally together to make the change ourselves. Movie theaters rent out their screens for private showings of movies for birthdays and other celebrations. Why not have a celebration of basic movie goer respect? Create on Facebook or Twitter a fan page where people can come together in your community. Every week or month, organize a movie night where a screen is booked for one of the more recent movies. Commit a number of people from your fan pages to seeing this movie where it will be filled with people of a similar mindset. By doing so, you eliminate the disrespectful from your movie watching experience.

A Theater Revolution

I love movies and I love seeing them in the theater. However, I hate the dregs of society that sit next to me in the movies. I am not alone in this feeling. I am sick of those who come to a movie, paying a fair chunk of change to: eat their popcorn like they haven't seen food in days and to eat this food while having mouths gaping: constantly checking their cell phones for that all important message that will alter their state of being (it aint coming because you are not that special -sorry): talking to their friends about their other low-life scum sucking friends: narrating the movie for the well seeing and hearing douche of a friend that sits next to them watching the same God forsaken movie: hopping up and down from their seat to either refill that enormous bucket of lard and starch to sedate their sarlac pit of an appetite: bring their 2 year old to an existential movie about the French Revolution and then wonder loudly why their child is squirming and yelling. Guess what people? I don't want you sitting next to me in a movie theater and neither do a lot of other people!

I encourage those who share these sentiments to become vocal. Call these fuckers out. Feel free to embarrass them and tell them to be quiet or stop being a fucking cancerous nuisance. Leave the theatre for a minute and have a staff member eject them from the theater; chances are you will be rewarded with a free pass to your next movie. Do something to make yourself heard and lets make a stand against the ignorance of the world. Sure I am only referring to movie goers here, but this shit is important to me. A movie theater is supposed to be an escape from the assholes of the world. I pay to experience this escape, not to be trapped for 2 hours with those I am fleeing from.

Next, I encourage movie theaters to embrace these sentiments. I plead with movie theaters to be active in ridding these detestable creatures from their houses of business. Proclaim loudly that you agree with the words above and that you promote such a haven away from the Darwin rejects of our society. If you do this I will come. The numerous masses of those with similar attitudes will also come. The alternative to doing nothing more than the inept status quo of broadcasting brief postings prior to the movie to stop talking, put down the phone, and enjoy the movie will result in those faithful to paying to watch a movie will disappear. We are numerous and we are what make movies successful. We, the many who love to escape through the medium of a movie will dwindle away. We are also a strong and valued source as we see more than one type of movie. We see them all. We go when the economy is thin and we go when the sun is up and the skies are blue. We go no matter what and we thank you for the service you provide, but with an abuse of this service comes a re-evaluation of its worth.

Comics Adapted to Film: Why Reinvent the Wheel?

Poster for Singer's
Superman Returns.

Over the past few months test images from the Superman Returns movie have been released over the internet. The movie was directed by Bryan Singer and released to lukewarm reviews in 2006. It picked up from where the second Superman (released in 1980) movie ended. Personally, I enjoyed Singer's sequel although I thought its pace was slow at times.

Superman test suit from Burton's
Superman movie. Even the face of
the mannequin resembles Cage's.

Tim Burton was to originally direct Superman Returns, and Nicholas Cage was to be Superman instead of Brandon Routh who Singer casted. Images from the costumes that Burton was to use were released over the internet last month, and this month special affects designs were released from Singer's movie.

Doomsday from
DC Comics.

Most of the recently released images deal with costume designs. They are sketches and paintings, an attempt to visualize the style the movie was to take. What irked me, however, was that there was also a design of Doomsday. This character was the one who 'killed' Superman in the comics, back in 1992. I have never been a fan of the design of Doomsday in the comics and thought the idea was weak. It was like a 'hand of God' ending to a story line, where the author could not think of a better way to bring a story line to a conclusion so the most unthinkable action sweeps in mysteriously to usher in a closing. To me, the most logical conclusion to a story that dealt with Superman's demise involves a nemesis he has always faced, such as Luthor or more interestingly Batman, or he dies by his own selfless hands whilst saving Metropolis. All very heroic and befitting the character, unlike him being pummeled to death by a previously unknown space man on steroids. Regardless of how I felt, the character of Doomsday has remained popular by fans and a fixture in the Superman universe for the past 18 years.

Ill fated Doomsday design from
Singer's Superman Returns.

Now we know that Singer had a similar view of Doomsday as the fans did, except for how the character should be depicted. This is the problem. Singer's version of Doomsday is radically different from the comic character and reminds me more of a alien space marine that mated with a locust. While I admitted above that I am not a fan of Doomsday's character design from the comics, I still believe that when a character is adapted to a movie it should not be wholly removed from its origins. Otherwise, what is the point of adapting a character at all? This is all too common in Hollywood comic adaptations (eg. Daredevil). I will agree that it is often interesting to see some alterations to a character in both appearance and personality as it shows the outlook that the director or writer or actor had, but this cannot be taken too far as is the case with Doomsday. Otherwise you might as well call the character and movie something else. Artistic taste and vision can easily go too far in adapting a material into film, and the original source must always be referenced.

Perhaps I should be glad that Singer did not make a sequel after all.

Rethinking the Mundane

Not enough people reconsider what is taken for granted. Take for instance a commuter train. How much has truly changed about a commuter train in the past 100 years? I would say not much, especially not much in the way of revolutionary changes.

I, and others, would argue that it is the mundane and matter of fact aspects of materials and life that should be questioned in order for society to evolve. All too often changes in society occur in minute aspects of our technology and culture. For instance, how we light our houses has not changed all that radically for we still use an object that looks remarkably similar to the traditional light bulb and affix it in all too common places within our dwellings that would not be unlike that of a home say 100 years ago. How we light our homes has not changed, but small aspects of the technology have.

Returning to commuter trains, I look to three aspects that could be changed. These aspects are in different orders of scale and none have answers; often I find it more productive and difficult to pose a question than an answer, for at least an answer can generate a dialogue that did not previously exist.

The first aspect is how a train travels. The triplet form of traveling consists of ground, water, and air. These are exclusive from one another and presuppose us into thinking there are not other forms. Instead of asking how we can make an engine go faster or a route be streamlined to increase a train's efficiency, why not look to another way it can travel. Is there a fourth way to travel? By looking at this issue, the feasibility and possibility of traveling greater distances and over more difficult terrain and conditions can be lessened. Further, my hope and wish for trains (speaking of commuter not commercial trains) to be used in connecting Canadian cities may become more realistic as much of the Canadian countryside can be rough and the cities are widely spread apart.

The second question is how people fit into the train. In the city in which I reside the commuter trains are often packed, leaving a few unfortunate stragglers behind to wait for (hopefully) the next less full train. In response to this perceived problem, can people fit into a train in such a way that there is more room for other people? This problem asks if people currently ride a train via the most efficient way. The two ways currently employed is to either sit or stand. Passenger trains that go long distances have cots, or so I've seen in movies. This would be a third way to 'fit into a train', but are there other ways?

Lastly, people enter trains through rectangular doors that are evenly spaced across the facade of a train. However, is this the only way people can enter a train? Do the doors have to be placed in such a way and can they take a different shape? Often I see a bottleneck form as people furiously try to get into the train before it departs. Can the doors be rearranged or reshaped to prevent such bottlenecks? The reduction of these bottlenecks would decrease the time it takes for a train to reach its destination as the time required for passengers to board is now reduced.

I must reiterate that I do not have the answers to these questions. It is not folly either to offer a question and no answer. Exercises such as these aid in people noting the issues in their world that can be improved upon; to be tinkered with. It is through such actions that realizations occur and motivations are sprung into working towards finding answers to such new found problems. I feel that these exercises of thought are not encouraged in our school systems and places of work. Instead, children and adults are bombarded by questions that demand answers and a study that produces only more questions is deemed a failure. This is not the case and such thoughts should be discouraged. Instead, challenge yourself to look at issues and items taken for granted in new ways. View the world from the perspective of an outsider and ask it basic questions. Otherwise, we will only be wishing for change and producing nothing but the same in a different color.

What Happened to New Comic Book Characters?

X-Men, from the
1960's.

What happened to new comic book characters? I'm talking about how the two major publishers of comic books (Marvel and DC) appear to rely only upon their tried and true characters. The 1960's and 70's had an explosion of characters for Marvel and DC, most notably with Stan Lee's creations of the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and others. The characters that emerged out of these pivotal decades are the same that dominate today's comics, over 40 years later.

I recognize that it is expensive to introduce a new comic character. Launching a new book with an unfamiliar character is a risky and expensive move by any publisher. Centering an already popular book around a new character is also a risky and expensive move as it can alienate an already devoted audience. However, the risk of not introducing new characters is that the older ones will become spread too thin and be overused. It takes gumption to introduce a new character and I strongly feel the major publishers are playing it far too safe. They (publishers) should hire talented individuals and trust them in their creative abilities. If not, then comic fans will never know what characters could be introduced to their beady little eyes on a monthly basis, and of course, begin to cherish as much as the old characters.

Echo, by Terry Moore, is
one of the few recent
examples of a new character
but from an independent
publisher.

While there a few exceptions (referring primarily to the Vertigo line of comics), I can only hope that the major publishers will change their ways in the near future. Please, take a chance and allow fans like myself to experience new character creations. Even if it is a flop, it will still be a step forward. It will also provide diversity to the now static comic shelves. Through those mistakes perhaps we can also gain a better appreciation of where this wonderful medium is headed.