Marvel.com Blogs - Blah Blah Blog by Tom Brevoort

web marvel.com

BLOGS HOME|COMIC BLOGS|VIDEO GAME BLOGS|OTHER BLOGS|MARVEL NEWS

Reader Questions 2
2008-04-01 17:49:06

Another day of reader questions from the mailbag:

> Really, right now I just want to know if the SI: Prologue will make it in print (preferably not just collected later in the SI TPB) and not just be an online exclusive. I don't know if it's my settings or not (good chance it is), but I've never really been pleased with reading my books online. I also stare at a screen all day, so looking away into a book is a welcome change.

Posted by causeitwasfunny on 2008-03-27 19:46:00>

I don't think there's any plan for this at the moment, sorry. That preview was designed as an online exclusive, so while we'll almost certainly include it in a collection-to-come, it's not something that we were intending to print on paper before then. By that same token, while it's a cool little story, you don't need to have read it to enjoy or understand SECRET INVASION #1, so if staring at the computer screen isn't your thing (and if it's not, what are you doing hanging around this blog?) you won't be left out once the actual shooting starts.

>What's the best pitch of the last year that you received but couldn't greenlight?

Posted by Binaryan on 2008-03-27 20:00:19>

No such animal. If there was a pitch that I thought was noteworthy enough to do as a comic, it more-or-less got done. But the best pitch that got green-lighted but isn't happening (because the writer's strike ended) was SIMPSONS' writer/producer Matt Selman's--about which I can tell you no more.

>Are there any projects/titles/characters that you are dying to get out there again but don't have the right pitch for currently?

Posted by Binaryan on 2008-03-27 20:00:19>

Not as such, no. Every once in a while a character kind of starts to bubble up in the ether, as Moon Knight did a couple years ago, but in most of those cases finding the right pitch isn't all that difficult. The only property I can think of that fits your criteria is CLOAK & DAGGER, quite possibly because they were characters who went off the rails very early on, around the time they first won their own series. I remember them being really mysterious and cool when they first showed up in PETER PARKER, SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, but once tehy became headliners and we started to learn more and more about them, the appeal wore off. I think there's still something cool visually about them, but in all the years I've been at Marvel, nobody's turned in a pitch for them that's really sung to me.

>Question
Whats your take on this http://www.4thletter.net/gregland.gif

Posted by sickboy_ukuk on 2008-03-27 20:31:19>

I think it's a URL...

>What is the likelihood of, and what would be involved in any decision to reset a title's numbering back to where it would be if its original numbering had not been restarted (e.g. resetting New Avengers numbering back to Avengers numbering)?

Posted by Loob on 2008-03-28 00:23:23>

This is something that gets tossed around every once in a while for a particular book, typically when it's approaching a centennial anniversary. And usually, it's a way to make a little mini-event and get some more eyeballs on the book. But I think I'm past the point where, in general, I don't care all that much about the numbering; it's irrelevant to the storytelling. (And yet, I was quite pleased that the Millar/Hitch FANTASTIC FOUR run began with #554, rather than a new #1, so perhaps I'm not entirely of that mind just yet.) In any event, I don't know that I'd advocate changing the numbering on NEW AVENGERS, because it wasn't exactly a continuation of AVENGERS, but rather a completely new series.

And hey, let me answer that URL question from a few back a little bit more precisely. For those that haven't clicked through, the question is about artists using heavy reference in their work. And what I'd say about that is this: every artist uses scrap to some degree. The history of comics is cluttered with artists who'd swipe their way to fame and glory. Now, today, the technology makes it all the easier to pull from all sorts of other sources as well--photographs or 3-D models or digital images or whatever. But it's really all in how you use it. I wouldn't hire a guy I didn't think could draw the story effectively, but if the guy can do it, then he can do it. A buddy of mine from my art school days had a saying about art that I still use today: "If it looks good, then it IS good." There's more to what a guy like Greg Land brings to his page than his scrap, and that's evidenced by the sales of the projects he draws--if the readership unilaterally decided to turn on him because of the way he uses sources in his artwork, then he'd probably have to approach things another way. But that hasn't happened--there's a tempest-in-a-teapot among a small group of people online, but that's about it. As always, if you don't like it, don't buy it--that sends the simplest, strongest message.

More later.

Tom B

Aw, nuts. Well hey, maybe I'll give the digital comics another try. There are a few comics out there that I've had trouble finding in back issues, so maybe it'll fulfill that need as well. By the way, I use this blog as a momentary distraction away from the calls I have to take all day. I love it though, keep up the great work.

Posted by causeitwasfunny on 2008-04-01 18:09:28

I think the last book that could really reclaim its original numbering is Daredevil, having been published continuously from the end of the first book to the start of the second. (And many of the issues have dual numbering - either in the number box or hidden in Quesada's cover artwork.)

Posted by Fetsur on 2008-04-02 04:19:36

Tempest in a teapot
Oh trust us Tom, I'm not buying any Greg Land books at all, even if the writers are ones that I love like Matt Fraction and Ed Brubaker. The image was created to point out to others why we don't purchase the books anymore.

No one doubts the effectiveness of photo referencing within comic art. I am in the middle of Ten Cent plague and guys back in the day used "scrap" all the time. I know Harris and Ross both take their own pictures. I can tell when an artist redoes his own pose from before, and sometimes certain poses are just hard to do without looking like someone else's art, something Mike Choi recently pointed out in his blog.

I also know there is this recent spread on the internet for people to jump on any image that looks like another, even if it's pretty obvious the guy didn't do scrap at all.

But there is something about taking another image and making it your own.

Land just doesn't do that with us. The fact is we worry less about the fact he's doing scrap so much, but the way the scrap effects his pencil. Back on his older work, before land used so much scrap, he was a good enough penciler with a very good sense of action to his pages. It wasn't the greatest stuff but you could tell he was improving and his art had energy.

However, the newer stuff just doesn't have it. It makes this, and I hate it for it, decision towards realism to some sort existing image instead of fitting the confines of the story. Character faces look one way while dialogue clearly shows the opposite. Nothing is really dynamic and uncomfortably static. Characters tend to never look their ethnicity or look quite similar to each other.

It's a shame that I have to drop Uncanny X-men, a book that I have been getting into post Messiah Complex, but I guess it will give me the chance to push my dollar to another book that deserves it done by an artist whose work has more energy and less scrap. Land just doesn't "look good" to us. His art always kills the story for us regardless of the writer's ability to tell it.

I understand the reasons you support your artists and the reasoning that his art is good enough, but please do not make this into the internet is just trying to crap on some artist for doing his job. This is pretty much a question of taste and we do plan to do exactly what you say we should do, educate people further about the importance of storytelling in art and buying with our dollar.

Thanks for taking the time to take a look at the link that we worked hard on. I am happy that you take the time to let us know what's going on in the industry.

Posted by Pezdro on 2008-04-02 06:46:56

Land
I'm surprised you answered the Land question. Personally, I'm a bit torn between your answer and Pezdro's. True, I feel that if art can come off looking nice than who cares how it got there unless you're not actually doing the work yourself. However, there is a certain amount of strangeness about Land's art that does imply he's using out-of-context photos a bit too much.

That aside, he made Johnny look terribly creepy in the Ultimate FF, which - photo-refrencing not withstanding - was just wrong.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2008-04-02 07:22:00

Tom, I think you're definitely ducking the key issue in that Greg Land question. A lot of the time, artists are using copyrighted images without permission, and yet keep getting work without any consequences being seen. I've just spent some time looking through that Newsarama thread about David Mack and NEW AVENGERS # 39, and it seems Alison Sohn (Adam Hughes' agent/partner) and Adam Hughes are pretty pissed off that their work is being traced without any notification or apology from Mack or Marvel. And Marvel still went ahead and published the book.

I like to think I'm paying for original art, not something I could have traced myself. I think that response shows a lack of consideration for the fans who pay your bills and the artists who created the work. It's certainly a bigger issue than "scrap".

Posted by skagandboneman on 2008-04-02 07:22:27

Btw, Tom, another question. You edit NEW AVENGERS, right? What was your reaction/what actions did you take when the whole "swipe" thing started blowing up online?

Posted by skagandboneman on 2008-04-02 07:24:15

I guess I am more concerned about the other artists than I am about my sensibilities being offended with Greg Land. I like Tom's bottom line approach, and I know that if I had to choose between a few scrap references and a book coming out a month or two late, I choose the referenced work.

But I am curious to know more about the reactions of the other artists. Should they care? Do they have any say? It's not like they weren't paid for their work.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2008-04-02 09:41:21

It's not as simple as 'don't buy it'
As a reader I tend to follow writers much more than I do artists. I want to read every book written by writers whose work I enjoy. Amongst the writers whose work I follow are Mark Millar, Brian Michael Bendis, Ed Brubaker, and Matt Fraction. All of these writers have written books illustrated by Greg Land or will be writing books illustrated by Greg Land. When that happens, I buy the books. I get annoyed at the fact that I have to look at Land's art, but I want to read the stories by these creators that I enjoy.

Perhaps you could offer script only editions for books illustrated by Greg Land in the same way that certain titles have been getting black and white variants? I'd buy those over a book illustrated by Land in a heartbeat.

Posted by ed2ward on 2008-04-02 12:29:30

I like Land
Hi,
I do like Land's work and even if it is repetative with some referance, I still enjoy and would keep buying it. I hope he keeps working and will be supporting him via purchasing his books.

Posted by WadeTripp on 2008-04-02 13:23:53

Thanks for the reply
But my problem with Land is not just the amount photo referencing, it's the inconsistency that comes alomg with it. In one issue of Ultimate Power within the space of a couple of pages two diffrent characters(Think it was Wasp and Wanda) had the same face and it stood out a mile. Google "the many hair styles of sue storm" Witch change form panel to panel. or the great Greg Land guessing game on Newsarama for more. His art is so distracting im to busy trying to figure out whitch celebrity which hes traced than getting involed with the story.

Posted by sickboy_ukuk on 2008-04-02 14:46:54

Pezdro and sickboy have articulately stated my biggest beefs with Land's work (there is a LOT of photo-referenced work that I really, really like). I would love to simply not buy Land's work if I could somehow read things like Millar's Ultimate Fantastic Four or the upcoming Brubaker/Fraction Uncanny X-Men without it there. These are writers and characters I enjoy and I would love to have some alternative means of reading these stories to reading them with Land's artwork. I'll say again - script only variant editions please?

Posted by ed2ward on 2008-04-02 15:03:07

Yeah, right
"every artist uses scrap to some degree."

I registred for the single purpose of me being able to say this to Marvel about their attitude towards art - up yours!

Now, I will go an unregister.

Posted by amikael77 on 2008-04-02 15:41:09

Breaking your own rules
Leaving aside our feelings on whether Land's swiping is wrong, Marvel itself has already stated outright that his swiping is wrong, as outiined by a letter I'm sure you've already seen.

Posted by K-Box on 2008-04-02 16:31:43

And since this apparently won't let me post l
... The link to the letter:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o281/Royd2007/originalartworpolicy200el6.jpg

Posted by K-Box on 2008-04-02 16:32:41

I like Land
and I will continue to buy his books. Comics are supposed to be fun and getting your knickers in a twist over them just defeats the whole purpose.

Posted by jaredgood1 on 2008-04-02 17:47:03

Breaking your own rules
Here is a link to the letter that Marvel sent out, specifically prohibiting swiping:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o281/Royd2007/originalartworpolicy200el6.jpg

I had posted this before, but it seemed to go missing ... hm.

Posted by K-Box on 2008-04-02 18:18:38

Array

Enter a response to this blog post: