http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=249

Scroll down to the comics industry heading. I don't much post here anymore but I thought some might be interested in reading this. I don't have any comments one way or the other on the matter.

Interesting reading no doubt. I like the guys description of DD as an "also ran" webcomic host. Since there are after all only 4 maybe I can name off the top of my head, with everyone else hosting themselves.

Outside of that remark, it puts Scotts business history (which is pretty much a matter of public record) once again into the spot light. Which isn't neccessarily a bad thing, it's good journalism to keep an eye on people. His personal attacks however on Cowboys & Aliens was a little weak though, I mean you can read it here for free if you don't want to buy it. Nobody is forcing anyone to actually buy it. As for comics stores being paid to carry it, well Platinum must really be paying attention to detail then, as I saw the book for sale in my small local comic book store in Oslo (49 norwegian kroners if you are interested).

Other than that, an interesting blog I was unaware of. I'll try to keep up with it.

You know, I've read a bunch of articles like this and I really feel like the comics community - especially the blogging and niche article writing community - has no idea how things work in what is called the world of business.

I really wonder what these writers like Journalista are thinking. Apparently they think that comic books are somehow properties that should be immune to market forces. Artists and writers should only do it for the love of the medium, not for any financial rewards.

I don't understand how this has become a prevailing attitude with the critics, but it drives me up the wall. Comics are art, but they're also properties worth money. If someone besides DC and Marvel wants to work out a payment system for that property with the artists and writers, why shouldn't they?

It's embarrassing. Why are the respected names in the comic industry so insistent that the only good comics in the medium are created by individual starving artists who wear thier low sales numbers and exclusionary comic style like badges of honor?

As for whether Rosenberg drove his sales numbers up by enticing comic book stores to buy excessive comics of C&A, who knows if it's even true? It certainly isn't anything new in the world of book publishing.

Ronson
Artists and writers should only do it for the love of the medium, not for any financial rewards.

I don't believe that this is actually what is being expressed there. It seems that whenever someone raises potential concerns someone has to give a condescending lecture about how people don't know anything about business. I think it is probably exactly the point that comics is a money making business that, muckrakers that they are, they apply scrutiny to the practices of players in the industry( other than themselves that is. It's not like TCJ and Jounalista aren't owned by a publisher, themselves ;))

But i will admit that much of this is over my head at least so it's good to hear counterpoints.

Kline
I don't believe that this is actually what is being expressed there. It seems that whenever someone raises potential concerns someone has to give a condescending lecture about how people don't know anything about business.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to point out a very consistent thread in these types of blogs - and Gary Groth style editorials. They seem very disconnected from the world outside of comics and don't seem to recognize market forces or business decisions.

I am paid full time to do illustrations for a corporation. I have done thousands of drawings, photo manipulations ... whatever. Should I get angry for not getting any credit for my work besides a paycheck? No. That's the deal I agreed to.

The people who run Marvel & DC - and Scott Rosenberg - aren't employing artists and writers out of the goodness of their heart. They want to make money. Duh. That doesn't make them "sleazeballs", it makes them businessmen.

The only real point the article makes is that Rosenberg has not produced the comics he had promised. Again though, that's not incredibly unusual in the comic business. But he HAS printed "Cowboys and Aliens", and he has consistently said that the printing would start in earnest next year.

I dunno, I read these articles and I think they're a mixture of sour grapes and elitism.

I think it is probably exactly the point that comics is a money making business that, muckrakers that they are, they apply scrutiny to the practices of players in the industry.

Yeah, I agree, except that they're very free and easy with terms like "sleazeball" - which they define as non-comic artist/writers who want to turn other people's products into movies and tv shows. I don't know where the "sleaze" part is in there, since it doesn't seem like Rosenberg is doing these things in secret or without the knowledge of the creators.

I've searched the web, and I can't find any realy critisisms of Rosenberg by any of the creators who have dealt with him. Only vague innuendos that he profited more than he should have.

That's the problem with blogs, the breezy blurring of personal opinion and speculation with news coverage.

One last thing I'll add. What I feel pertinent to the "it's business" argument is that comics is still an evolving industry which means there is an opportunity to determine what practices should be encouraged or discouraged through our participation in it. And for professionals, what precedents should be set, what rights ceded, what terms acceptable as the normal business of comics.

Sure, you can always point to work-for-hire in another industry or the business practices of Industry X. But it is worth questioning conventions and whether we really want the comics industry to be modeled after such practices as if they are one size fits all. Just because they do business a certain way in the recording industry, the syndications, or film should comics follow the same path? I'm guessing that commercial illustration might have some variance with developing a movie property or comic in terms of compensation and intellectual property concerns..?

But as I first expressed, I haven't had any contact with Rosenberg and don't forsee any so I don't really have any direct comments to make about the claims being made. But as they pertain to comics web and print and DD in particular I thought they were worth posting.

Oh, it was definitely worth posting. A little peek at what some of the more insider insiders of the comic world think of events that are going on.

But it is worth questioning conventions and whether we really want the comics industry to be modeled after such practices as if they are one size fits all.

The thing is that comics aren't really all that different from any other industries. And I think that the people who write these articles are more in line with feeling that one size fits all than an entrepeneur who is trying to approach comics from the direct Platinum seems to be. Essentially, they dismiss efforts that are not what they personally feel artists and writers should do, and give no credence to the idea of an open market with a variety of approaches.

I myself am still not quite sure what the issue is. Are they angry because Platinum Studios compensated comic stores for picking up Cowboys and Aliens? And that because comic stores got the copies for free, they were featured in comic stores?

If so, what's the difference between doing that and cartoonists going around to comic stores and asking if they could display copies of their work? Or cartoonists giving away copies of their work at conventions?

Or are they just angry about the byproduct of that action? That because they were willing to compensate comic book stores, more were order and thus Cowboys and Aliens were seen as a book that's high in demand?

Comixpedia ran a mention about this and I'm really disappointed by all the comments. It seems like people can't act in a civilized manner without degenerating into backhand insults. Drama apparently must go on.

Black_Kitty
I myself am still not quite sure what the issue is. Are they angry because Platinum Studios compensated comic stores for picking up Cowboys and Aliens? And that because comic stores got the copies for free, they were featured in comic stores?

If so, what's the difference between doing that and cartoonists going around to comic stores and asking if they could display copies of their work? Or cartoonists giving away copies of their work at conventions?

Or are they just angry about the byproduct of that action? That because they were willing to compensate comic book stores, more were order and thus Cowboys and Aliens were seen as a book that's high in demand?

Comixpedia ran a mention about this and I'm really disappointed by all the comments. It seems like people can't act in a civilized manner without degenerating into backhand insults. Drama apparently must go on.

There appears to be a broader history here (see the quote at the top of the link) and they see this as a continuation of a sort of shell game I guess. The sillyness of "comic based movies are hot now" , making a deal to make a film based on comic book properties (that don't exist) and then fabricating a comic for that purpose and allegedly fabricating a high print run by paying retailers to order large amounts of the book. Basically using the comics industry to score movie deals that really have nothing to do with the actual quality or real interest in the original comic. And of course there are the false big claims about Drunk Duck. Basically I think people see it as a lot of hype and talk and indeed "sleezy" market crap rather than a serious publishing interest.

I'm guessing that the bigger the pond comics becomes we'll see more sharks jump in.

DJ coffman certainly isn't doing anyone any favors by his conduct which is coming across as a little crazed and it is pretty widely known that Deppy is gay so who knows. I'm not getting into that one.

I think DJ has gone through a fair bit of undue critisism. In some ways I think it's because he's wasn't part of the "inner circle" of independent comics and he took a deal with Platinum - who also aren't part of the inner circle. But I can't find his comments, where are they?

I agree that there's history here. But part of that history is the successful adaptation of "Men in Black" to the movies and several tv series - which WERE comics before time and were helped to get noticed in hollywood by Rosenberg.

I think the word "sleazy" is too strong. "Sharks" might be closer, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the industry. Good business sharks could create a new era for comics ... because the old dinosaurs that run the bulk of the comic book industry now are killing it slowly.

Ronson
I think DJ has gone through a fair bit of undue critisism. In some ways I think it's because he's wasn't part of the "inner circle" of independent comics and he took a deal with Platinum - who also aren't part of the inner circle. But I can't find his comments, where are they?

I agree that there's history here. But part of that history is the successful adaptation of "Men in Black" to the movies and several tv series - which WERE comics before time and were helped to get noticed in hollywood by Rosenberg.

I think the word "sleazy" is too strong. "Sharks" might be closer, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the industry. Good business sharks could create a new era for comics ... because the old dinosaurs that run the bulk of the comic book industry now are killing it slowly.

http://yirmumah.net/a-platinum-year/ [yirmumah.net]


Here you go. Throwing around terms like "asshat" and other personal attacks is making him look a little hysterical. Otherwise I don't know the history. Looking at the turdmonger comment in context, though, I can see why Manley might be sensitive to what that term might mean but I just don't think that is the way it was intended.

Edit: On the other hand, if he really did call Manley a "pillowbiter" previously as Manley says..

Whatever, this crap isn't doing anything for anyone.

There is no shortage of angry and bitter people in the world...

Kline
http://yirmumah.net/a-platinum-year/ [yirmumah.net]Here you go. Throwing around terms like "asshat" and other personal attacks is making him look a little hysterical. Otherwise I don't know the history. Looking at the turdmonger comment in context, though, I can see why Manley might be sensitive to what that term might mean but I just don't think that is the way it was intended.

Edit: On the other hand, if he really did call Manley a "pillowbiter" previously as Manley says..

Whatever, this crap isn't doing anything for anyone.

Thanks for the link.

I don't think "turdmonger" is all that bad, but I admit I don't know every derogatory term in the world. I associate it with fishmonger, and a fishmonger sells fish. It seems like an apt metaphor for someone who says things you don't agree with.

But name calling is usually a bad idea in debate. I guess he's just blowing off steam.

As for the "pillow-biter" thing, I didn't know what that was supposed to mean until now, so I guess I'm slightly less ignorant today.

Volte6 is right. Let's all hug, everyone!

Ronson
Volte6 is right. Let's all hug, everyone!

I'm not cuddling any pillow-biters... :)
-joking, of course.

The whole discussion is rather interesting, but dragging Drunk Duck into it and referring to it in a derogatory manner simply because of a connection with someone they don't like is appalling.


-That said, I don't understand this thing about getting news from blogs. It's much like columnists in newspapers or radio talk show personalities, except the quality is of course much, much worse. Only morons get their news from those sources, they're intended as entertainment. But people are always going on about blogs these days... Personally I'd rather read about some depressed kid cutting himself than some fool's opinion on a handful of rumours and take them as news.

-I intend no offence towards anybody here.

Yeah, what is "also ran" anyway? Isn't that like someone who pretended to be something, but never actually became that thing? Are they saying that there aren't actually any webcomics on drunk duck?

I believe (though don't quote me on this) that it comes from horse racing. Horses that don't come in high in the field (or manage to finish) are referred to by "also ran". Which given the vast *cough* field of free webcomic hosts out there ... means bugger all. Which is why I said I liked it, unfortunatly sarcasm doesn't always come through on the internet.

Meh, as much as I would like comics to be all about art, a comic isn't a single piece that someone can work on for a while and then sell to somebody through a gallery. It's art and words telling a story. So that means you need distribution, and you need to be payed.

The whole thing about making a movie based on a comic that didn't exist at the time (C&A) is kinda sketchy, but whatever.

Looks like Platinum has a big lineup there. Optimistic, no doubt, and I'll probably be picking up Hero by Night, but the rest of that stuff doesn't exactly entice me. Besides, I already have a lot of series I'm following.