 |
| Madison Malloy, Dead and Not Loving It. |
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Deadgirl #1
Following up yesterday's art attempt, here's another. Keeping with my pattern of revisiting similar subjects, it's a re-vamped version of Deadgirl, the Deadman reboot I proposed awhile back. With all the recent controversy around DC's treatment of women in comics, I admit I'm a bit hesitant to champion a female character who is killed in the first page of the first issue, but given that the series' main storyline is about her trying to discover the identity and motive for her murder, I'm hoping that can slide.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Green Arrow #1
Inspired by the good folks over at DC Fifty Too, I figured I'd give my Green Arrow reboot another go. Given that I'm doing a bespoke, hipsterish take on Ollie, I figured it would be best to evoke one of the most loved indie rock albums of all time. Standard warnings about my inability to draw apply.
 |
| Green Arrow Reboot, Issue #1 |
Friday, September 23, 2011
Outrage Fatigue
"When fans are angry, we're selling comics."
Tom Brevoort, Executive VP, Marvel Comics
I don't think any of us expected the DC Reboot to be without controversy. The fundamental nature of a reboot means that amongst all the changes, there will be stuff that the fans don't like. Like the quote above says, that's a plus for the industry. Just think of all the free mainstream publicity Marvel got off of not only killing Ultimate Spider-Man, but rebooting the character as a minority. Pundits were flipping out, stories were printed in widely read newspapers, and sales prospered. Hell, even DC's pre-boot controversy of Superman renouncing his citizenship made the headlines. I bet that sold some comics as well.
Both these instances represent change causing controversy which in turn sells comics. Change To Sell is pretty much the mantra behind the New 52 - new costumes, new numbering, and new backstories abound. The poster girl for this philosophy is probably Batgirl as she's the character who has gone through the most change, casting off her chair and Oracle persona in favor of a return to her crime punching roots. I'm not a huge fan of the change, my librarian nature preferring the dedicated, behind the scenes hero Oracle to the building-swinging Batgirl, but I don't hate it. I can see why some people would want Barbara Gordon to walk and curiosity about the change (and controversy) caused me to buy Batgirl #1 upon release.
The anger over Barbara walking is the "good" sort of controversy that sells comics. However you may feel about the loss of a disabled superhero or trying to wipe away the stain of how Barbara was treated in the 80s, you could at least see some logic behind it. Even from a business perspective, having a walking, fighting Batgirl makes sense - it's only a matter of time before she gets her own movie, so the Idea Factory that is the modern comicbook best get to work now giving her her own identity and story engine.
There is a bad sort of controversy, though, one that goes against the quote above and actually does not sell comics, even though it makes fans plenty angry. This controversy may have aspects of change to it, it's not a change at its core - it's just more of the same.
I'm speaking, of course, of the treatment of female characters in the New DC. Changes abound here, but they are not core changes, just the logical extension of how female characters seem to be treated in comics. Harley Quinn to Juggalo, Amanda Waller to Tyra Banks, Starfire to fuck machine, all these "changes" represent a fundamental adherence to the idea that females in comicbooks are eye candy first, participants second, and characters a distant third. The anger felt by fans here isn't a "How dare they do THIS!" type outrage, it's a "Ungh, so they did THIS again?" type disappointment. The anger comes from the feeling that opportunity has been wasted, that there was a chance here for real change that was cast off in favor of more of the same, but somehow worse.
That anger is not the anger that sells comics. That's the anger that keeps comics on the shelf and makes potential customers roll their eyes as they walk by, tired of dealing with the pornification of the genre. I'm a guy and I don't want to buy these comics - I can only imagine how the Rule 63 Drew would feel.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Waller Redux
So in my previous post about Amanda Waller, the Second Most Powerful Human in the World, I mentioned nothing about her, er, size. See, in previous incarnations, Waller had always been presented as a stocky figure at best. Like many people who were introduced to her via Justice League's DCAU, I've sort of assumed that CCH Pounder is not only the voice of Waller, but a good representation of her physical appearance.
I guess DC thought differently as they rebooted Waller's figure from Pounder straight on through Angela Bassett (who played a version of Waller in Green Lantern) to a figure more in line with comicbook stereotypes: svelte-yet-curvey-with-a-bit-of-cleavage.
I'm not a fan of the change. Not because of what it means about sizism or whatever (I'm a white dude, so my backpack is pretty full I guess), but because what it means for the character. My Waller is someone who has worked for everything she has, who has played the system and won. SexyWaller is a different creature than that. Not because she wouldn't have worked hard or anything, but because instead of playing the system, it's much easier for her to play the individual. In my reboot, Waller totally manipulated the institutional mandate to have more people of color in middle management positions. That's how she got her start - she saw a need, filled the need, entrenched her position, then found another need ("Checkmate") and repeated the process.
New Waller could do all that too, I guess, but if she retains the same ambition as the Classic version, wouldn't she resort to using all her assets to obtain her goals? A top button undone could get you an extra five minutes with a department head. Accepting an invitation to an afterwork drink could get you even more. That definitely adds a sexual aspect to the character, one that wasn't really needed before.
I am reminded about the changes to the artwork in Greg Rucka's Queen & Country. The Tara Chace that started the series had this sort of tired strength to her, something that came through pretty clearly in Steve Rolston's art, something that was lost when Leandro Fernandez took over later and she became this exaggerated sexual caricature of a female. Big Tits Chace was not an agent who would have to slink through a checkpoint hoping for the best, or if she did slink, it would be in a form-fitting little black dress. It just killed the character (and the series!) for me.
Will this change to Amanda Waller do the same? It's too early to tell. I've read some wishful comments where people hope that she regains her stature throughout the course of Suicide Squad, but I don't think that would be in line with the character. Waller is not a person who lets go of what she has - if she has a good figure, she'll be on the exercise bike three hours a day to keep it. If DC chooses to address this, I bet we'll see a soliloquy along the lines of Power Girl's boob window defense ("I never found a symbol that fit me, so I left it blank!") where Waller talks about how she was a fat kid and worked every day yadda yadda yadda. Of course, this means that Waller actually gives a crap about what other people think of her, something that seems weird in a person who is totally okay with torturing captives, performing live human experimentation, and writing off thousands of people as "acceptable losses." I hope they don't do this as it means Waller would be admitting weakness to another person, something she just doesn't do.
As Classic Waller worked her way up the ranks, her figure probably didn't help much, but I think that once she got to the top, it certainly does. The resolute, matronly bearing of Amanda Waller would be a comfort to panicky presidents and a warning to other department heads who think they could cross her. In my mind's eye, Waller isn't obese or anything, she's strong, resolute, stubborn and her art should reflect such.
One of the strengths about the comics medium is how art can define characters in a way text never could. Changing the depiction of a character, even if nothing about that character's background is changed, changes who that person is. Care must be taken and artistic details have to be thought through just as much as backstories. "Shaking up the character" is just not enough reason to re-do the art. It's not like there's a shortage of only theoretically anatomically correct attractive women in comics, so recasting a character to join their ranks actually makes her stand out less.
I guess DC thought differently as they rebooted Waller's figure from Pounder straight on through Angela Bassett (who played a version of Waller in Green Lantern) to a figure more in line with comicbook stereotypes: svelte-yet-curvey-with-a-bit-of-cleavage.
I'm not a fan of the change. Not because of what it means about sizism or whatever (I'm a white dude, so my backpack is pretty full I guess), but because what it means for the character. My Waller is someone who has worked for everything she has, who has played the system and won. SexyWaller is a different creature than that. Not because she wouldn't have worked hard or anything, but because instead of playing the system, it's much easier for her to play the individual. In my reboot, Waller totally manipulated the institutional mandate to have more people of color in middle management positions. That's how she got her start - she saw a need, filled the need, entrenched her position, then found another need ("Checkmate") and repeated the process.
New Waller could do all that too, I guess, but if she retains the same ambition as the Classic version, wouldn't she resort to using all her assets to obtain her goals? A top button undone could get you an extra five minutes with a department head. Accepting an invitation to an afterwork drink could get you even more. That definitely adds a sexual aspect to the character, one that wasn't really needed before.
I am reminded about the changes to the artwork in Greg Rucka's Queen & Country. The Tara Chace that started the series had this sort of tired strength to her, something that came through pretty clearly in Steve Rolston's art, something that was lost when Leandro Fernandez took over later and she became this exaggerated sexual caricature of a female. Big Tits Chace was not an agent who would have to slink through a checkpoint hoping for the best, or if she did slink, it would be in a form-fitting little black dress. It just killed the character (and the series!) for me.
Will this change to Amanda Waller do the same? It's too early to tell. I've read some wishful comments where people hope that she regains her stature throughout the course of Suicide Squad, but I don't think that would be in line with the character. Waller is not a person who lets go of what she has - if she has a good figure, she'll be on the exercise bike three hours a day to keep it. If DC chooses to address this, I bet we'll see a soliloquy along the lines of Power Girl's boob window defense ("I never found a symbol that fit me, so I left it blank!") where Waller talks about how she was a fat kid and worked every day yadda yadda yadda. Of course, this means that Waller actually gives a crap about what other people think of her, something that seems weird in a person who is totally okay with torturing captives, performing live human experimentation, and writing off thousands of people as "acceptable losses." I hope they don't do this as it means Waller would be admitting weakness to another person, something she just doesn't do.
As Classic Waller worked her way up the ranks, her figure probably didn't help much, but I think that once she got to the top, it certainly does. The resolute, matronly bearing of Amanda Waller would be a comfort to panicky presidents and a warning to other department heads who think they could cross her. In my mind's eye, Waller isn't obese or anything, she's strong, resolute, stubborn and her art should reflect such.
One of the strengths about the comics medium is how art can define characters in a way text never could. Changing the depiction of a character, even if nothing about that character's background is changed, changes who that person is. Care must be taken and artistic details have to be thought through just as much as backstories. "Shaking up the character" is just not enough reason to re-do the art. It's not like there's a shortage of only theoretically anatomically correct attractive women in comics, so recasting a character to join their ranks actually makes her stand out less.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Action Comics #1
So after some technical (and meteorological) difficulties, I finally downloaded Action Comics #1.
And it's pretty good!
So I'm not going to talk about it. Well, sorta.
Instead, I'm going to talk about a recent episode of the FX show Louie and hopefully use that to bring things back to Superman and Action Comics #1. Spoilers follow, natch.
In the episode in question, Louis CK, a comedian, travels to Afghanistan to entertain the troops. Now we know by virtue of him being the main character of the show which bears his name that while his experiences in a warzone might change him a bit, they will not do so drastically - he'll not get shot, his chopper won't crash, he won't witness a bloody sacrifice on the part of a soldier. If any of that happened, the show would become a much different thing, and while I wouldn't put it past Louis CK to try something like that, it would only be cartoony-style where a Bad Thing Happens one week and the next nobody ever talks about it again. This would undercut the gravitas of the episode and I don't see Louis wanting that.
So how does the show get the audience to feel anxious as the invulnerable main character travels through dangers that cannot harm him?
They give him a duckling.
Turns out, right before Louis got on the plane, one of his daughters stashed away a baby duck in his luggage. They were watching the baby ducks as part of a class project and in order to prevent her dad from being lonely on his trip, the daughter put one in a box and packed it away in his bag. Louis discovered the duck (and a note) pretty much upon arriving on base. Because the duck is important to his daughter, he now has to protect and care for it. However, we the viewer know from previous exposure to Louie that the show has absolutely no problems going dark. No matter what Louis-as-character might feel for the duckling, Louis-as-writer/director will not hesitate to kill it in a horrifying, depressing, or horrifically depressing way.
And there's our tension. We know nothing will happen to the main character, but the duck is fair game. Because the duck is little and cute and helpless and has the love and tears of a pretty blonde girl backing it up, we immediately don't want anything to happen to the duck.
What's more, because Louis is on this super-macho base surrounded by soldiers (even his co-performer is an ex-Ranger), he feels the need to hide the duck. He doesn't want anyone to know about it for fear it will change their opinion of him (and it does - when he reveals the duck to the cheerleader he's trying to make a connection with, it totally changes her opinion of him). So in a way, Louis develops this secret identity. This only serves to heighten the tension as we watch his bag with the duck tucked away in it gets tossed around, carried on a helicopter, and even possibly placed in the middle of a firefight.
Eventually, the duck is revealed during a tense standoff between the soldiers and some locals with guns. The antics of a man desperately trying to chase down a waddling baby duck relieves the tension of the scene and also the tension of the duck. We know then that the duck lives and later, we see it make it home.
So what's this have to do with Action Comics #1? Well, first off, we know Superman is invulnerable. Not just by the fact that invulnerability is sorta his schtick, but that he's the main character in a flashback comic. I hit on this briefly in my comments on Justice League #1 - there's no tension when we know the characters will survive and thrive, either because their name is on the cover or because it's a flashback. This shifts the focus of the story from "Will The Character Make It From Point A to Point B?" to "How Does The Character Make It From Point A to Point B?"
Justice League did not answer this question very well. I mean, it tries, but it does so by rote, like if you memorized the answer to an essay question the night before and just copied down on the test the next day. Maybe it will get better at answering this question in later issues (#1 feeling like the first 5 minutes of a Michael Bay movie and all), but I'm not sure. With all those characters running around, the need for massive dialogue info downloads is pretty high. This info-spew makes it feel like that answering the question is not very high on the list. "How Did The Justice League Form?" "Darkseid attacked, duh."
Action Comics #1, on the other hand, makes it very clear that it's all about answering the question "How Did Superman Become Who He Is Today?" The whole comic reads like it will be focused on Superman's growth.I mean, he's not able to leap a tall building in a single bound, he's not faster or more powerful than a speeding bullet train. Even more, and this might be wishful thinking on my part but it brings us back around to the duckling, it seems to realize that just answering that question is not enough to make for a good story. We need the tension to make the action scenes work. I mean, sure, it was great to see the Jimmy Olsen references ("best friend," Jimmy's cellphone ringtone), but it was better to see him become a duckling again, that frail and fragile creature whose name is not on the cover who could get hurt during the course of the story.
Now, the chances of anything actually happening to Jimmy is pretty low, but I think that the danger to the character is there. Think about it. This is, what, a 5+ year flashback? Jimmy's entire character is based on his naivete, his earnest need for adventure. Will that foundation still be there in five years? If not, will there be any need for Jimmy? Something could happen to him (not to Lois) and Superman could move on as normal.
Still, to hedge my bet, I'll point out the existence of Clark's landlady and the potential cast of characters who live in his building. Those people, unknown before Issue #1, are definitely ducklings. As is the named cop from the opening scene and the corrupt businessman who seems to be in cahoots with Luthor. Something could happen to all those people, even if (maybe especially if) they are built up and developed over the course of the next several issues. Something will happen to these ducklings that will lead to Clark developing not only his powers, but his identity as Superman.
There were no ducklings, not even false or potential ones, in Justice League #1. There was just some required action and required information being spewed.
So yeah, Action Comics #1 is pretty good. I wish they had lead with it on August 31st.
And it's pretty good!
So I'm not going to talk about it. Well, sorta.
Instead, I'm going to talk about a recent episode of the FX show Louie and hopefully use that to bring things back to Superman and Action Comics #1. Spoilers follow, natch.
In the episode in question, Louis CK, a comedian, travels to Afghanistan to entertain the troops. Now we know by virtue of him being the main character of the show which bears his name that while his experiences in a warzone might change him a bit, they will not do so drastically - he'll not get shot, his chopper won't crash, he won't witness a bloody sacrifice on the part of a soldier. If any of that happened, the show would become a much different thing, and while I wouldn't put it past Louis CK to try something like that, it would only be cartoony-style where a Bad Thing Happens one week and the next nobody ever talks about it again. This would undercut the gravitas of the episode and I don't see Louis wanting that.
So how does the show get the audience to feel anxious as the invulnerable main character travels through dangers that cannot harm him?
They give him a duckling.
Turns out, right before Louis got on the plane, one of his daughters stashed away a baby duck in his luggage. They were watching the baby ducks as part of a class project and in order to prevent her dad from being lonely on his trip, the daughter put one in a box and packed it away in his bag. Louis discovered the duck (and a note) pretty much upon arriving on base. Because the duck is important to his daughter, he now has to protect and care for it. However, we the viewer know from previous exposure to Louie that the show has absolutely no problems going dark. No matter what Louis-as-character might feel for the duckling, Louis-as-writer/director will not hesitate to kill it in a horrifying, depressing, or horrifically depressing way.
And there's our tension. We know nothing will happen to the main character, but the duck is fair game. Because the duck is little and cute and helpless and has the love and tears of a pretty blonde girl backing it up, we immediately don't want anything to happen to the duck.
What's more, because Louis is on this super-macho base surrounded by soldiers (even his co-performer is an ex-Ranger), he feels the need to hide the duck. He doesn't want anyone to know about it for fear it will change their opinion of him (and it does - when he reveals the duck to the cheerleader he's trying to make a connection with, it totally changes her opinion of him). So in a way, Louis develops this secret identity. This only serves to heighten the tension as we watch his bag with the duck tucked away in it gets tossed around, carried on a helicopter, and even possibly placed in the middle of a firefight.
Eventually, the duck is revealed during a tense standoff between the soldiers and some locals with guns. The antics of a man desperately trying to chase down a waddling baby duck relieves the tension of the scene and also the tension of the duck. We know then that the duck lives and later, we see it make it home.
So what's this have to do with Action Comics #1? Well, first off, we know Superman is invulnerable. Not just by the fact that invulnerability is sorta his schtick, but that he's the main character in a flashback comic. I hit on this briefly in my comments on Justice League #1 - there's no tension when we know the characters will survive and thrive, either because their name is on the cover or because it's a flashback. This shifts the focus of the story from "Will The Character Make It From Point A to Point B?" to "How Does The Character Make It From Point A to Point B?"
Justice League did not answer this question very well. I mean, it tries, but it does so by rote, like if you memorized the answer to an essay question the night before and just copied down on the test the next day. Maybe it will get better at answering this question in later issues (#1 feeling like the first 5 minutes of a Michael Bay movie and all), but I'm not sure. With all those characters running around, the need for massive dialogue info downloads is pretty high. This info-spew makes it feel like that answering the question is not very high on the list. "How Did The Justice League Form?" "Darkseid attacked, duh."
Action Comics #1, on the other hand, makes it very clear that it's all about answering the question "How Did Superman Become Who He Is Today?" The whole comic reads like it will be focused on Superman's growth.I mean, he's not able to leap a tall building in a single bound, he's not faster or more powerful than a speeding bullet train. Even more, and this might be wishful thinking on my part but it brings us back around to the duckling, it seems to realize that just answering that question is not enough to make for a good story. We need the tension to make the action scenes work. I mean, sure, it was great to see the Jimmy Olsen references ("best friend," Jimmy's cellphone ringtone), but it was better to see him become a duckling again, that frail and fragile creature whose name is not on the cover who could get hurt during the course of the story.
Now, the chances of anything actually happening to Jimmy is pretty low, but I think that the danger to the character is there. Think about it. This is, what, a 5+ year flashback? Jimmy's entire character is based on his naivete, his earnest need for adventure. Will that foundation still be there in five years? If not, will there be any need for Jimmy? Something could happen to him (not to Lois) and Superman could move on as normal.
Still, to hedge my bet, I'll point out the existence of Clark's landlady and the potential cast of characters who live in his building. Those people, unknown before Issue #1, are definitely ducklings. As is the named cop from the opening scene and the corrupt businessman who seems to be in cahoots with Luthor. Something could happen to all those people, even if (maybe especially if) they are built up and developed over the course of the next several issues. Something will happen to these ducklings that will lead to Clark developing not only his powers, but his identity as Superman.
There were no ducklings, not even false or potential ones, in Justice League #1. There was just some required action and required information being spewed.
So yeah, Action Comics #1 is pretty good. I wish they had lead with it on August 31st.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Living In A Digital World?
There are downsides to digital distribution, of course. And I'm not just talking about the whole 'you are only buying access to a comic' thing. The weather, for example. It's been pouring rain here the past few days which means I've opted to leave my iPad at home, thus putting off any attempt to read or download this week's batch of New #1s to read on the train. (Action Comics is probably the only one I'll go into blind. It'll take some buzz to get me to look at Batgirl, Swamp Thing, or Animal Man). I just can't bring myself to risk a pricey electronic toy on a commuter rail full of dripping, leaning passengers.
So instead I wiled away my (delayed and slow) train playing King of Dragon Pass on my iPhone and pondering digital comics.
Why the need to tie new, digital comics to old, paper comics? If we accept the conventional wisdom that comics are if not a dying medium, then certainly not a growing one, why try to emulate them? The structure of comics, that is the panels and art and word bubbles and so on, is fine to emulate - change that too much and you either have animation or a short story. But the distribution? Why do I have to wait until Wednesday to download my comic? Comic stores have to wait because of the vagaries of the shipping process - because things ship to different locations at different speeds, there needs to be a common release date. Otherwise, well, uh..
Otherwise, I'm not sure what happens. Distribution is pretty much handled by a single entity and shipping rates would be the same for similar geographical locations. So the two and a half comicbook stores in Harvard Square would, in theory, receive their stuff all on the same day. Would it be the end of the world if stores in, say, San Francisco got theirs a day earlier? Spoilers can't be an issue - comics are pretty consistently spoiled online pre-release and nothing has burst into flames yet.
Maybe it has something to do with how sales are counted? But that can't be a driving reason behind Wednesdays, can it? It has to be one of those Traditional things that sprung up after the switch to the Direct Market that pulled comics from drug stores and newstands and sort of ghettoized in specialty shops, the sort of weird arcane tradition that we need to shed if we want comics to re-enter the mainstream as more than movie inspiration or videogame tie-ins. Assuming we can't shed the tradition in the physical distribution of comics, why can't we get rid of it in the digital?
Surely, it would be in DC's favor to have people browsing their app multiple days of the week. Given how my iPhone's Facebook and G+ icons get swarmed by little red numbers over the course of a weekend, I'm pretty sure there's the ability to notify readers that a comic they are interested in has a new issue up, thus mimicking one part of current comics distribution, the pull list, that can actually work well depending on your shop.
One of the things that will help prolong comics is re-integrating them into readers' everyday lives. Divorcing digital comics from Wednesdays while taking advantage of the medium's ability to notify readers of new issues would help to do so. That way, you don't have a Special Day that you must remember to check for new comics. Instead, readers can notice new things they are interested while they are in the middle of other tasks - check to see if the train is running late and then find out that a new comic is available for download. A few taps and it's downloaded and life goes on, except now with comics!
Hell, it could even be a selling point about digital comics that they come out first. That'd help defray the sting of price matching, for sure. Set the 'Comics Week' as being a Thursday to Wednesday with the last day being the day that physical issues are released while allowing digital editions to become available in advance. If you wanted to keep the hype-potential of set 'release dates' then you could tie certain days in with certain titles, so Saturday becomes Baturday and Sunday is the Last Sunday of Krypton or something equally hoaky.
Basically, if I now don't have to go to the comicbook store on Wednesday to get my new comics, why do I have to wait until Wednesday?
So instead I wiled away my (delayed and slow) train playing King of Dragon Pass on my iPhone and pondering digital comics.
Why the need to tie new, digital comics to old, paper comics? If we accept the conventional wisdom that comics are if not a dying medium, then certainly not a growing one, why try to emulate them? The structure of comics, that is the panels and art and word bubbles and so on, is fine to emulate - change that too much and you either have animation or a short story. But the distribution? Why do I have to wait until Wednesday to download my comic? Comic stores have to wait because of the vagaries of the shipping process - because things ship to different locations at different speeds, there needs to be a common release date. Otherwise, well, uh..
Otherwise, I'm not sure what happens. Distribution is pretty much handled by a single entity and shipping rates would be the same for similar geographical locations. So the two and a half comicbook stores in Harvard Square would, in theory, receive their stuff all on the same day. Would it be the end of the world if stores in, say, San Francisco got theirs a day earlier? Spoilers can't be an issue - comics are pretty consistently spoiled online pre-release and nothing has burst into flames yet.
Maybe it has something to do with how sales are counted? But that can't be a driving reason behind Wednesdays, can it? It has to be one of those Traditional things that sprung up after the switch to the Direct Market that pulled comics from drug stores and newstands and sort of ghettoized in specialty shops, the sort of weird arcane tradition that we need to shed if we want comics to re-enter the mainstream as more than movie inspiration or videogame tie-ins. Assuming we can't shed the tradition in the physical distribution of comics, why can't we get rid of it in the digital?
Surely, it would be in DC's favor to have people browsing their app multiple days of the week. Given how my iPhone's Facebook and G+ icons get swarmed by little red numbers over the course of a weekend, I'm pretty sure there's the ability to notify readers that a comic they are interested in has a new issue up, thus mimicking one part of current comics distribution, the pull list, that can actually work well depending on your shop.
One of the things that will help prolong comics is re-integrating them into readers' everyday lives. Divorcing digital comics from Wednesdays while taking advantage of the medium's ability to notify readers of new issues would help to do so. That way, you don't have a Special Day that you must remember to check for new comics. Instead, readers can notice new things they are interested while they are in the middle of other tasks - check to see if the train is running late and then find out that a new comic is available for download. A few taps and it's downloaded and life goes on, except now with comics!
Hell, it could even be a selling point about digital comics that they come out first. That'd help defray the sting of price matching, for sure. Set the 'Comics Week' as being a Thursday to Wednesday with the last day being the day that physical issues are released while allowing digital editions to become available in advance. If you wanted to keep the hype-potential of set 'release dates' then you could tie certain days in with certain titles, so Saturday becomes Baturday and Sunday is the Last Sunday of Krypton or something equally hoaky.
Basically, if I now don't have to go to the comicbook store on Wednesday to get my new comics, why do I have to wait until Wednesday?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Goodnight, Fing Fang Foom
 |
| Goonight, Fing Fang Foom |
There was a danger zone
Around Fin Fang Foom
And a picture of-
The stars aligning with the moon
and there were three Avengers, dodging dangers
and a lot of henchmen
and Fantastic stretch’en
and the Mandarin’s rings
Shooting at things
And a bomb and a kick and an agent called Nick
And an Old Man Logan whose claws were going ‘snikt’
Goodnight tomb
Goodnight Fin Fang Foom
Goodnight stars aligning with the moon
Goodnight fights
That go kraka-thoom!
Goodnight rings,
You deadly things
Goodnight Avengers
and goodnight dangers
Goodnight Thor
and goodnight Four
Goodnight thunderclap
And goodnight Cap
Goodnight bomb
And goodnight kick
Goodnight Mandadrin
Goodnight Nick
And goodnight to Old Man Logan whose claws were going ‘snikt’
Goodnight stars
Goodnight air
Goodnight True Believers everywhere
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)