Comics will never die! Long live comics. My day job is working in a book store so if you believe that people no longer read than you are mistaken.Do you read? Do you read comics? If you do then why would you think your alone? If sales are down its because there's so many options now. A lot more than when I was coming up.
Comics will transform just like every other medium. Music stores closed up in the 90's but you can still get any music you want at retail stores or online.
I honestly believe that we are living in the golden age of web comics. American comic books were around over 30 years before Superman was created. Web comics have been around for less than Fifteen years. We haven't even hit our stride.
With download time getting faster and print on demand getting cheaper comics are really read for a revolution.
Put on your game face! Attack your drawing board and lets take down the big two corporate conglomerates Time Warner and Mickey Mouse comics.

I think with Warner Bros getting closer to DC and Disney getting closer to Marvel its apparent that Comic books are not only not going anywhere (as in they wont disappear) but they'll eventually evolve into a key route to Hollywood.

Big name Comic writers are all ready developing close relationships with Hollywood producers. It'll only be a matter of time before theres an abundance of screenwriters in Hollywood who got there through writing comics. When you think of it theyre the perfect package. Films scripted and storyboarded and pretty much pre-packed for filmmaking since the average fan doesnt like the film adaptions to fiddle with the original story too much.

We're really only at the beginning.

JamariLaw
I think with Warner Bros getting closer to DC and Disney getting closer to Marvel its apparent that Comic books are not only not going anywhere (as in they wont disappear) but they'll eventually evolve into a key route to Hollywood.

Big name Comic writers are all ready developing close relationships with Hollywood producers. It'll only be a matter of time before theres an abundance of screenwriters in Hollywood who got there through writing comics. When you think of it theyre the perfect package. Films scripted and storyboarded and pretty much pre-packed for filmmaking since the average fan doesnt like the film adaptions to fiddle with the original story too much.

We're really only at the beginning.

Very True...

And with the incredibly fast pace of technological development, it will not be long before aspiring comic writers and artists will be able to relatively easily turn their comics into animated films.

Already what used to take several months can be accomplished in weeks or even days.

Indy films are growing in popularity every year... soon on-line animated films made by small groups or even individuals will leave Hollywood in the dust

I definitely agree. The only downside I think is that since technology is making certain things a lot easier, it'll naturally become a lot harder to break in when everyone possesses the same advantage >.<. It just gets harder and harder every generation lol.

Already what used to take several months can be accomplished in weeks or even days.

That's a very dangerous way of looking at it. One that already sees many people in the industry getting overworked and undervalued. One of my friends was one of the lead animators on the recent production Freaknik on Adult Swim. To cut costs they dropped the whole animation team excluding him and one other animator. The bulk of that one hour special was animated by two people over the course of four months. He was literally working 16-hour days and weekends the whole time simply because the network thought their deadline was viable. In the end they still had to bring back most of the other animators in the last couple of weeks to finish the animation.

This isn't even the worst of it as far as employers taking advantage of animators. Networks and studios seem to have lost touch with how difficult it actually is to create an animation, so average salaries for animators are dropping unless you have the technical know-how to animate in 3D. Deadlines get tighter and when animators in the US can't deliver what they need in the time they need it for the miniscule budget they are offering, they turn to overseas studios who can do it cheaper. The industry is already hard to break into thanks to this. There is an abundance of animators, but not a lot of job openings that need filling.

I think with Warner Bros getting closer to DC and Disney getting closer to Marvel its apparent that Comic books are not only not going anywhere (as in they wont disappear) but they'll eventually evolve into a key route to Hollywood.

I don't see the two major comic book publishers getting bought out by larger corporations as a good sign for the viability of comic books. If anything, it just shows that the medium isn't viable on its own and now REQUIRES a mixed media approach. Comics don't make enough money to support themselves, they NEED the TV shows and movies to make them profitable. If that weren't the case, DC and Marvel would still be independent companies.

I think with Warner Bros getting closer to DC and Disney getting closer to Marvel its apparent that Comic books are not only not going anywhere (as in they wont disappear) but they'll eventually evolve into a key route to Hollywood.

I don't see the two major comic book publishers getting bought out by larger corporations as a good sign for the viability of comic books. If anything, it just shows that the medium isn't viable on its own and now REQUIRES a mixed media approach. Comics don't make enough money to support themselves, they NEED the TV shows and movies to make them profitable. If that weren't the case, DC and Marvel would still be independent companies.


From the standpoint of Hollywood, I think it needs comics more than comics really needs Hollywood. I also think the trend of comics to movies isnt something thats going to die down anytime soon because art and a strong script have always been key elements to making at least a good action movie.

But as far as mass media goes, when Stan Lee was asked about the Disney merger he supposedly said it was a dream come true. Its a versatile medium populous with a passionate fanbase, which is why its a valuable asset to other forms of media.

They're not doing Comics a favor, comics're doing THEM a favor.

From the standpoint of Hollywood, I think it needs comics more than comics really needs Hollywood.

And I see it as quite the opposite. Hollywood doesn't need comics. There are plenty of other franchises out there for Hollywood to exploit. The comics industry, however, can't survive on the business tactics they used in the 80's and 90's. They are definitely getting a boost from the movie industry. Take the Watchmen comic, for instance. Sales of the comic hit an all time high when the trailer for the movie came out. Other comics have seen similar boosts when their respective movies have hit the theaters.

Comics don't have the same pull on the movie industry. The latest Ironman comic doesn't generate interest in the upcoming movie. Hollywood feeds on the nostalgia based around established franchises. Newer and more obscure franchises tend to do fairly poorly in the box office unless they can leech off the success of other genres or franchises. Once a franchise is out there, the comics don't matter. The sequels will sell based on the success of the first movie, not the name attached to it.

In the end, no amount of name recognition will save a bad movie and the comic fans aren't going to make a movie sink or swim. In the end they can only rely on themselve to make a success, the comics aren't going to push the film. Hollywood brings a Hell of a lot more to the table than the comics idustry.

isukun

From the standpoint of Hollywood, I think it needs comics more than comics really needs Hollywood.

And I see it as quite the opposite. Hollywood doesn't need comics. There are plenty of other franchises out there for Hollywood to exploit. The comics industry, however, can't survive on the business tactics they used in the 80's and 90's. They are definitely getting a boost from the movie industry. Take the Watchmen comic, for instance. Sales of the comic hit an all time high when the trailer for the movie came out. Other comics have seen similar boosts when their respective movies have hit the theaters.

Comics don't have the same pull on the movie industry. The latest Ironman comic doesn't generate interest in the upcoming movie. Hollywood feeds on the nostalgia based around established franchises. Newer and more obscure franchises tend to do fairly poorly in the box office unless they can leech off the success of other genres or franchises. Once a franchise is out there, the comics don't matter. The sequels will sell based on the success of the first movie, not the name attached to it.

In the end, no amount of name recognition will save a bad movie and the comic fans aren't going to make a movie sink or swim. In the end they can only rely on themselve to make a success, the comics aren't going to push the film. Hollywood brings a Hell of a lot more to the table than the comics idustry.

I think the relationship between Hollywood and Video Games proves that Hollywood gets a lot more out of comics than it does other franchise properties. There hasnt been one successful video game movie (with the exception of Mortal Kombat :P) to date while the latest Batman movie received an academy award for supporting actor. And if the tactic of selling movies to pocket fanbases didnt work then you're pretty much ignoring the very important statistics game that Hollywood is all about. Fox is a prime example of people who play that game. Dragonball Evolution and the last two X-Men films were pretty much all about selling opening night tickets, not a quality movie. For X-Men three they just said "Lets throw the Rush Hour director at it" and for Wolverine Origins they sharked the production of actual location shooting by making mostly digital locations so they could make more on the turnout. Because everyones gonna go see an X-Men movie.

Hollywood is catering to comics probably more than its catered to any other thing you can think of. Established comic writers like Bendis are getting sick of the San Diego Con atmosphere being almost more about movies than it is comics.

I think it'll be evident over time that comics will always be linked to blockbuster popcorn films. And i think its because of the mass media approach to selling a film. The inherent craft of comics covers almost all the prime principles of filmmaking with the exception of audio. The only difference between movies now and movies back then was that we couldnt interpret the kinds of scenes we can now given recent technology.

Plus its just logic. If i were a studio exec and I wanted to do a ninja movie because i felt the timing was right for that sort of film, I'd look to the most successful ninja comic property and buy it. I'd have a story ready to be condensed or rewritten into a script and a loyal fanbase to gauge and please. Since its your average ninja movie, people wont feel like they needed to have read any of the books and i've got a fanbase who, if they wont see it, will at least buy some of the new merchandise that'll be centered around it and thats money in my pocket.

Maybe Marvel and DC arent the best examples of comics showing they'll be around forever in that they were the two big mainstream companies that got bought out, but I think its just evidence that the main stream approach to selling things will always involve comics. The independent nature of comics makes it so that you dont need the two giants. Besides....Image aint sold out yet lol.

I think the relationship between Hollywood and Video Games proves that Hollywood gets a lot more out of comics than it does other franchise properties.

No, it just proves Hollywood isn't willing to put money into videogame movies. There haven't been any good manga/anime based movies, either, and it isn't due to lacking source material. Also, Hollywood has made far more off novels and original projects than it has off of comics. You can't just pick an arbitrary genre and claim it proves your point, especially when it doesn't.

Dragonball Evolution and the last two X-Men films were pretty much all about selling opening night tickets, not a quality movie.

Dragonball Evolution was a massive box office flop. As far as Hollywood is concerned, X-men: The Last Stand and X-Men: Origins were both failures, as well. The third movie had a massive budget and just barely made it back in domestic returns. With the fourth, they scaled down the budget knowing the franchise didn't have enough steam left in it and the movie still just barely made back its production costs. The first two movies each doubled their production value in the box office.

Hollywood can't get by on name value unless the budget is low enough on the film. Why do you think they keep making video game movies? They all do terribly in the box office, but their production values are low enough that it doesn't matter. The most successful comic book movies as far as Hollywood is concerned are the movies with the $50 million or lower budgets. The more expensive the movie becomes, the less likely it is to be a success. Only your really big and recognizable names get that shot in Hollywood.

Hollywood is catering to comics probably more than its catered to any other thing you can think of.

Books, TV, plays, historical figures and events, other movies, and original ideas. Wow, that's six things I can think of right off the top of my head.

isukun

I think the relationship between Hollywood and Video Games proves that Hollywood gets a lot more out of comics than it does other franchise properties.

No, it just proves Hollywood isn't willing to put money into videogame movies. There haven't been any good manga/anime based movies, either, and it isn't due to lacking source material. Also, Hollywood has made far more off novels and original projects than it has off of comics. You can't just pick an arbitrary genre and claim it proves your point, especially when it doesn't.

Dragonball Evolution and the last two X-Men films were pretty much all about selling opening night tickets, not a quality movie.

Dragonball Evolution was a massive box office flop. As far as Hollywood is concerned, X-men: The Last Stand and X-Men: Origins were both failures, as well. The third movie had a massive budget and just barely made it back in domestic returns. With the fourth, they scaled down the budget knowing the franchise didn't have enough steam left in it and the movie still just barely made back its production costs. The first two movies each doubled their production value in the box office.

Hollywood can't get by on name value unless the budget is low enough on the film. Why do you think they keep making video game movies? They all do terribly in the box office, but their production values are low enough that it doesn't matter. The most successful comic book movies as far as Hollywood is concerned are the movies with the $50 million or lower budgets. The more expensive the movie becomes, the less likely it is to be a success. Only your really big and recognizable names get that shot in Hollywood.

Hollywood is catering to comics probably more than its catered to any other thing you can think of.

Books, TV, plays, historical figures and events, other movies, and original ideas. Wow, that's six things I can think of right off the top of my head.

Its made far more off of novels because its been adapting novels and other things long before its been adapting comics. The technology didnt really exist to interpret most of the prevailing stories of the genre.

I was wrong in saying its making more off of comics than anything else. What I meant was that given the fact that the blockbuster opening night angle will never go away, comics will always be part of Hollywood, not to mention what other industries use comics to market their properties. Its because of this that I dont think the vitality of comics are linked to the big two- which is what I thought you were arguing to begin with.

Comics based movies had a boom in the 30's and 40's and then completely disappeared for almost three decades. Technology has little to do with it. Hollywood is on an 80's kick right now. That's what's trendy. Comics happened to be fairly popular back then and some of the more iconic poperties are making their way into the movies. They became cultural icons during that era. Twenty or thirty years from now, when Hollywood is focusing on what was popular during this era, comic movies won't be that big. Very few people follow comics, now, and the comics that people do follow don't get the same sort of dedicated following as comics back in 80's and 90's.

isukun
Comics based movies had a boom in the 30's and 40's and then completely disappeared for almost three decades. Technology has little to do with it. Hollywood is on an 80's kick right now. That's what's trendy. Comics happened to be fairly popular back then and some of the more iconic poperties are making their way into the movies. They became cultural icons during that era. Twenty or thirty years from now, when Hollywood is focusing on what was popular during this era, comic movies won't be that big. Very few people follow comics, now, and the comics that people do follow don't get the same sort of dedicated following as comics back in 80's and 90's.

So from X-Men 1 (2000) to the yet unreleased Iron Man 2 (2010) Hollywoods been in an 80s kick for about ten years now?

Because by the way people howled at the Iron Man 2 trailer when I went to see Clash of the Titans...it seems to be more technology having caught up with a medium of storytelling capable of limitless imagination than a temporary trend.

There is no medium of storytelling that isn't capable of limitless imagination. Special effects have been the focus of moving pictures since before we used film. The only thing new technolgy really does is make it harder for us to suspend belief. People were perfectly happy watching the next cheesy monster movie back in the 50's. Movies like King Kong in the 30's certainly didn't lack imagination. Hollywood just used different techniques to achieve the same goals in the past.

The technology has nothing to do with the popularity of the medium. Superhero movies didn't just start springing up in the past decade. As I said before, there was a time in the 30's and 40's when the genre had a bit of a boom with several serials based on popular comic icons like Superman, Batman, Captain America, and Captain Marvel (as well as non-superhero characters like Dick Tracy and Hop Harrigan). In the early 50's, though, the genre lost steam and almost completely disappeared until the late 70's with the first Christopher Reeves Superman movie. In the time inbetween, Hollywood didn't stop making special effect films, they just changed their focus to a different genre that captured people's interest. Comics didn't offer the kind of stories people wanted to watch.

The current comics kick we have today is just a continuation of the trend started in the late 70's. Back then, it worked because comics were popular and there was a demand for comic based movies and TV shows. This continued into the 90's until the comics market started to dwindle and people started to lose interest in the medium. For the past decade, though, there has been a major movement towards nostalgia pieces. Why do you think we've been getting so many remakes and retro films in the last decade?

isukun
There is no medium of storytelling that isn't capable of limitless imagination. Special effects have been the focus of moving pictures since before we used film. The only thing new technolgy really does is make it harder for us to suspend belief. People were perfectly happy watching the next cheesy monster movie back in the 50's. Movies like King Kong in the 30's certainly didn't lack imagination. Hollywood just used different techniques to achieve the same goals in the past.

The technology has nothing to do with the popularity of the medium. Superhero movies didn't just start springing up in the past decade. As I said before, there was a time in the 30's and 40's when the genre had a bit of a boom with several serials based on popular comic icons like Superman, Batman, Captain America, and Captain Marvel (as well as non-superhero characters like Dick Tracy and Hop Harrigan). In the early 50's, though, the genre lost steam and almost completely disappeared until the late 70's with the first Christopher Reeves Superman movie. In the time inbetween, Hollywood didn't stop making special effect films, they just changed their focus to a different genre that captured people's interest. Comics didn't offer the kind of stories people wanted to watch.

The current comics kick we have today is just a continuation of the trend started in the late 70's. Back then, it worked because comics were popular and there was a demand for comic based movies and TV shows. This continued into the 90's until the comics market started to dwindle and people started to lose interest in the medium. For the past decade, though, there has been a major movement towards nostalgia pieces. Why do you think we've been getting so many remakes and retro films in the last decade?

You're right, comics have always been a part of Hollywood and TV, and thats what i'm saying. I think what you're failing to recognize in your own argument is that comic properties in film and tv re-emerged once the technology broke previous boundaries. When they failed to do that back then they merely settled and became our definition of camp. The entire slogan for the Christopher Reeve's Superman movie was "You'll believe a man can fly." because the compositing effects to more realistically interpret Superman's flight among many other things broke previous boundaries particularly because Star Wars had re-defined visual effects.

You bring up a pretty awesome point that new technology means it makes it harder for us to suspend our disbelief, particularly because it really bugs me how many otherwise awesome films get ignored because the effects were a let down. But action cinema will always be a vital artery of Hollywood and so long as thats a fact comic books have their place in Hollywood because theyre a vital part of not only action cinema but mass marketing. And like anything else that lives, comic films will have their high and low points- but new visions and new technologies will always keep them going.

Since the days of cave paintings they've been the bare bones of visual storytelling. And they may never be a dominating force of entertainment above films and video games, but they are essentially the make up of any visual story and will always linger as a part of our culture like classical music or war lol.

You're right, comics have always been a part of Hollywood and TV, and thats what i'm saying.

That's what you are saying, it's not what I'm saying. Comics haven't always been a part of Hollywood and TV. They have really only had a following with certain audiences when they were popular as pop culture icons.

I think what you're failing to recognize in your own argument is that comic properties in film and tv re-emerged once the technology broke previous boundaries.

And what you are missing in my argument is that it didn't. It re-emerged BEFORE that because that is what was popular at the time. Technology had nothing to do with it.

The entire slogan for the Christopher Reeve's Superman movie was "You'll believe a man can fly." because the compositing effects to more realistically interpret Superman's flight among many other things broke previous boundaries particularly because Star Wars had re-defined visual effects.

Star Wars had nothing to do with the production of Superman. The techniques used in both films had been around for decades by the time each one began filming (and quite frankly, Superman was approved for production before Lucas even had a concept and the effects were in testing before Star Wars even started filming). In fact, the only real compositing advancements made around that time was in the 80's when Richard Edlund developed a quad optical printer which simplified the process of chroma key compositing. Before that, the process remained largely unchanged since the late 50's. Since Superman came out in 1978 and wasn't being produced by the same studio as Empire Strikes Back, I seriously doubt they had access to that technology. What they did have access to, though, was a massive budget for the time. It was the most expensive movie ever made when it was produced.

But action cinema will always be a vital artery of Hollywood

Actually, it's the advancement of technology that will eventually be the downfall of the big budget special effects action movies. Hollywood was founded on the concept of presenting the people with the most convincing fantasy one can create. Since the start, the emphasis has been on continuing to create bigger and better visual effects to wow audiences. SO what do you think will happen when we get to the point where things simply can't look any better? The way I see it, one of two things will happen. Either movies will start to decline and make way for a new form of media or Hollywood is going to have to start bringing audiences back into the theater with strong writing and acting. We're already starting to see non-action films taking over a larger part of the market. Studios are reducing budgets on the Summer blockbusters except for rare exceptions.

comic books have their place in Hollywood because theyre a vital part of not only action cinema but mass marketing.

Looking at the top 50 highest grossing movies of all time, all but one are from the past two decades. Only four really don't fall into the category of action movies and not surprisingly, only four are based on comics. That's 8% of the action films in the top 50. I'm sure if you took the total number of comics based films and compared it to the total number of action movies that number would get even lower. Not exactly what I would consider "vital".

And they may never be a dominating force of entertainment above films and video games, but they are essentially the make up of any visual story

Not really. Movies were derived from two totally different forms of media, neither of which were even remotely related to comics and both of which were derived from non-visual forms of communication.

isukun

That's what you are saying, it's not what I'm saying. Comics haven't always been a part of Hollywood and TV. They have really only had a following with certain audiences when they were popular as pop culture icons.

Actually I think you just dont realize thats what youre saying. If Hollywood started in the 1900s and there have been comic book icons showing up on and off till this day since then, then what you have is evidence that comics have always been a part of Hollywood.

And what you are missing in my argument is that it didn't. It re-emerged BEFORE that because that is what was popular at the time. Technology had nothing to do with it.

Technology had nothing to do with interpreting Wonder Woman and the Hulk in the 70s?

Star Wars had nothing to do with the production of Superman. The techniques used in both films had been around for decades by the time each one began filming (and quite frankly, Superman was approved for production before Lucas even had a concept and the effects were in testing before Star Wars even started filming). In fact, the only real compositing advancements made around that time was in the 80's when Richard Edlund developed a quad optical printer which simplified the process of chroma key compositing. Before that, the process remained largely unchanged since the late 50's. Since Superman came out in 1978 and wasn't being produced by the same studio as Empire Strikes Back, I seriously doubt they had access to that technology. What they did have access to, though, was a massive budget for the time. It was the most expensive movie ever made when it was produced.

Star Wars becomes a huge success and the Superman movie borrows its production designer and John Williams and it has nothing to do with the production of Superman? A movie that was on hold since 73 and gets an Oscar for special effects in 78 (the year after Star Wars revolutionizes special effects in Hollywood) had nothing to do with Star Wars?

Actually, it's the advancement of technology that will eventually be the downfall of the big budget special effects action movies. Hollywood was founded on the concept of presenting the people with the most convincing fantasy one can create. Since the start, the emphasis has been on continuing to create bigger and better visual effects to wow audiences. SO what do you think will happen when we get to the point where things simply can't look any better? The way I see it, one of two things will happen. Either movies will start to decline and make way for a new form of media or Hollywood is going to have to start bringing audiences back into the theater with strong writing and acting. We're already starting to see non-action films taking over a larger part of the market. Studios are reducing budgets on the Summer blockbusters except for rare exceptions.

I disagree. I think its apparent movie going audiences work in phases. The 70s saw ten years of gritty and continuous groundbreaking drama until Star Wars and Jaws ushered in the Summer blockbuster movie that dominated the 80s. At most we'll go back and forth between drama and action or maybe comedy and drama, but with times as hard as their getting, people arent always in the mood for a constant barrage of serious stuff. There will always have to be an alternative. And while the distribution and release of films may change with things like Netflix and streaming media, people will always need winding down after work. Not every action film is completely mindless. Its actually the marriage of action and drama that is key to almost any exhilirating adventure story. With people being more and more confined to their homes or offices, i dont see a hunger for a sprawling theatrical adventure diminishing any time soon.

Looking at the top 50 highest grossing movies of all time, all but one are from the past two decades. Only four really don't fall into the category of action movies and not surprisingly, only four are based on comics. That's 8% of the action films in the top 50. I'm sure if you took the total number of comics based films and compared it to the total number of action movies that number would get even lower. Not exactly what I would consider "vital".

Give it a few more years.

Not really. Movies were derived from two totally different forms of media, neither of which were even remotely related to comics and both of which were derived from non-visual forms of communication.

Last I checked, and i'm in film school, storyboards and scripts are essential elements to almost any organized film production. Or any animation for that matter, which I'm sure you well know.

then what you have is evidence that comics have always been a part of Hollywood.

Only in the same respect that Tarzan and Zorro have "always been a part of Hollywood." Fads come and go based on people's interests.

Star Wars becomes a huge success and the Superman movie borrows its production designer and John Williams and it has nothing to do with the production of Superman?

John Barry was already a well recognized production designer at the time with multiple movies under his belt and the popularity of Star Wars had nothing to do with him being brought onto the project. Star Wars wasn't even out, yet when Barry started work on Superman. John Williams was brought on because Donner originally wanted to capitalize off the popularity of Jaws by bringing in the composer and director who worked on THAT film. Once again, not due to Star Wars which wasn't even out, yet. Speilberg declined because he was working on Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Superman wa sin production for more than a year since the film was produced simultaneously with its sequel. Principle filming started before Star Wars hit theaters. Donner was not considering the film during production.

The 70s saw ten years of gritty and continuous groundbreaking drama

Actually, the 70's saw quite a few action movies, they just had a greater focus on horror, gangster, detective, and exploitation films. A lot of that carried over from the 50's and 60's.

Give it a few more years.

It's already had 30 and I don't see things changing.

Last I checked, and i'm in film school, storyboards and scripts are essential elements to almost any organized film production.

And neither are comics. That's like saying comics were a vital part in the work of Leonardo Da Vinci because he drew things. Plays have scripts as well, and some past cultures made books depicting visually how the actors were meant to look and behave during the play. Neither were derived from comics, nor were the nonexistant comics of the time vital to their art.

isukun
Only in the same respect that Tarzan and Zorro have "always been a part of Hollywood." Fads come and go based on people's interests.

Its really not impossible that those two movies will come back in some sort of way. The Peter Jacksons or Guillermo Del Toros of tomorrow could generate interest in that. And things do come and go with timing. But that doesnt mean genres cant be adaptable to the times. When I said "comic books" will be a part of Hollywood for a long time, I didnt say "superhero" books or "pulp" novels. I said comics. Pre-packaged, pre-visualized stories.

John Barry was already a well recognized production designer at the time with multiple movies under his belt and the popularity of Star Wars had nothing to do with him being brought onto the project. Star Wars wasn't even out, yet when Barry started work on Superman. John Williams was brought on because Donner originally wanted to capitalize off the popularity of Jaws by bringing in the composer and director who worked on THAT film. Once again, not due to Star Wars which wasn't even out, yet. Speilberg declined because he was working on Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Superman wa sin production for more than a year since the film was produced simultaneously with its sequel. Principle filming started before Star Wars hit theaters. Donner was not considering the film during production.

Fine...:P

Actually, the 70's saw quite a few action movies, they just had a greater focus on horror, gangster, detective, and exploitation films. A lot of that carried over from the 50's and 60's.

Scorsese, Sydney Lumet, Coppola and all the like were making ambitious, realistic complex pictures in light of the slump Hollywood was facing and turned out some of the most critically acclaimed work since its golden age. Action wasnt necessarily the focus though it was in its earliest form of what it would become in the (for the most part or at least in my opinion) sad sad 80s.

It's already had 30 and I don't see things changing.

I think it can only be fair to assume that the comics genre started out with a fair chance at about 2000 with X-Men....because of *cough* recent developments in cgi *cough*

And neither are comics. That's like saying comics were a vital part in the work of Leonardo Da Vinci because he drew things.

That is -such- a reach and you know it! :P You cant tell me youre going to deny the considerable amount of pre-visualization comics provide for making a film. You've got an estimate of sets, maybe not casting but lighting, color pallete, so many production elements. But from there you can possibly adjust the pacing to make a less predictable ending or whatever. And maybe i shouldnt have specified it to just the action category because look at "Ghost World". The comic was better in my opinion, but so much of the personality of that comic transferred flawlessly to film.

Given the release of Iron Man 2 coming up I think that the most that'll happen is that superhero movies will probably start to wane in interest (if they all ready havent) but a slew of movies will have been based on comics that many people werent even aware of. But i think the future of comics and Hollywood is that indy filmmakers will start prepackaging their film ideas for Hollywood using comics. Its just gonna take one Robert Rodriguez-like person of our generation to show that theyre a route to Hollywood and you'll be agreeing with me... or denying the truth like you are now! lol.

And whens the next page of your comic coming out? Awesome first page.

You cant tell me youre going to deny the considerable amount of pre-visualization comics provide for making a film.

Most movies do not follow the shot-for-shot layouts of comics, even when the film is based on a comic. Hell, most fans get all pissy because the characters don't even look the same. Everything is completely reimagined for the film version and the comics really don't cut down the amount of work that goes into preproduction or production. Just because a film is based on a preexisting concept, that doesn't make it easier to produce. Someone still has to write a script, someone still has to do all the design work, someone still has to draw out the storyboards. Comics don't cancel any of that out. Most movies are based on existing concepts and stories. As for as the production and preproduction parts of Hollywood are concerned, comics don't offer any advantages over other sources of inspiration. For the marketers, maybe, but it doesn't really simplify anything else.

But i think the future of comics and Hollywood is that indy filmmakers will start prepackaging their film ideas for Hollywood using comics.

Not likely. It's more work on both sides and presents no real advantages over the current system. In fact, if anything, it just makes things too complicated on all ends. Screenplay writers don't want to go through the expense of hiring artists for an idea they don't know if they can sell. Artists don't want to work on spec (I know this from experience). Studio execs don't want to waste time reading through a full script, let alone a comic of the full script. Directors, art directors, stunt and effects coordinators, and so forth don't want the writers telling them how to do their jobs. Most studios want something short and sweet. If you get too excessive in your previsualization, the studio interprets that as you wanting a larger stake in the project. Studios hate that and are more likely to just pass on the project so they don't have to deal with you.

And whens the next page of your comic coming out?

Bhag may end up going in a different direction. The recent reboot was with a different author. I think his writing on that project is stronger, but it isn't the best suited for a comic. I may end up scrapping that comic and trying something different. With Teenage Girl's Guide, Ben is rewriting the scripts. He wants to have a full story arc done before he gets it to me. We kind of wandered a bit with the current pages and ended up with something more action-oriented than we originally planned on. He's trying to get it back on track with the rewrite. On top of that, I've been pretty swamped with animation work lately. The last thing I want to do after spending all day drawing is draw some more.

isukun

Most movies do not follow the shot-for-shot layouts of comics, even when the film is based on a comic. Hell, most fans get all pissy because the characters don't even look the same. Everything is completely reimagined for the film version and the comics really don't cut down the amount of work that goes into preproduction or production. Just because a film is based on a preexisting concept, that doesn't make it easier to produce. Someone still has to write a script, someone still has to do all the design work, someone still has to draw out the storyboards. Comics don't cancel any of that out. Most movies are based on existing concepts and stories. As for as the production and preproduction parts of Hollywood are concerned, comics don't offer any advantages over other sources of inspiration. For the marketers, maybe, but it doesn't really simplify anything else.

I'm not saying comics by any means eliminate the need to draw up a production, but theres at least an estimate of what its going to look and be like. It provides much more previsualization than without and at least an indicator of what works and what doesnt as far as the director and his production team are concerned.

Not likely. It's more work on both sides and presents no real advantages over the current system. In fact, if anything, it just makes things too complicated on all ends. Screenplay writers don't want to go through the expense of hiring artists for an idea they don't know if they can sell. Artists don't want to work on spec (I know this from experience). Studio execs don't want to waste time reading through a full script, let alone a comic of the full script. Directors, art directors, stunt and effects coordinators, and so forth don't want the writers telling them how to do their jobs. Most studios want something short and sweet. If you get too excessive in your previsualization, the studio interprets that as you wanting a larger stake in the project. Studios hate that and are more likely to just pass on the project so they don't have to deal with you.

I'm not talking about people who've managed to get their foot in the industry. I'm talking about unknowns. And with how much equipment is accessible to the common consumer, theres a lot more competition on every side. Producers would only have to visit or overhear of a popular comic or webcomic, look over it and decide to buy the rights to it. If you're all ready making films you've got connections. Its of course a shot in the dark but if youre making films and comics for films you're working towards the same goal. Some big budget production ideas will never be made so long as youre a no-budget filmmaker trying to get people to see your story or your world the way you do. Why not have a comic sitting around that stands in as a pre-visualized production book as well as a quick read for entertainment? Its not easier or harder to read a script over a comic.

Bhag may end up going in a different direction. The recent reboot was with a different author. I think his writing on that project is stronger, but it isn't the best suited for a comic. I may end up scrapping that comic and trying something different. With Teenage Girl's Guide, Ben is rewriting the scripts. He wants to have a full story arc done before he gets it to me. We kind of wandered a bit with the current pages and ended up with something more action-oriented than we originally planned on. He's trying to get it back on track with the rewrite. On top of that, I've been pretty swamped with animation work lately. The last thing I want to do after spending all day drawing is draw some more.

Damn. Well I hope you figure it out man. No reason in my opinion to not continue on with Bhag.

It provides much more previsualization than without and at least an indicator of what works and what doesnt as far as the director and his production team are concerned.

And as I said before, the director and the production team don't want that. They want control over the production.

I'm not talking about people who've managed to get their foot in the industry.

Neither am I. The less involved you are with the industry, the less input they want from you.

Its not easier or harder to read a script over a comic.

Actually it is easier to read a script, I can blow through one in half the time it takes me to read a comic of comparable length. It's also easier to write a script, format a script, edit a script, and transfer a script. Plus scripts have established standards that help people keep track of pace and timing, comics do not. You can have an entire page of a comic dedicated to a three second action sequence or a five minute dialog. Scripts tend to average about a minute a page. A script is also a cheaper solution for the no-budget would-be filmmaker. They don't need to hire an artist or pay printing costs when they write a script. Simply having a computer with Word and a Deskjet will do.

Damn. Well I hope you figure it out man. No reason in my opinion to not continue on with Bhag.

I'm not totally giving up on it. I'm just exploring other formats before I go back to comics. I just have some other projects to get out of the way, first.