You are currently browsing the publishing category
So I came across this flyer sent out to retailers in 1995: DC Comics describing the new paper stocks and formats for their books:
(You can click that to make it larger, if you so desire.)
I remember a time when I was really into the whole “paper stock”/price levels thing, particularly back when I was fan prior to ascending into Comics Retail Heaven. “Sure, the standard DC Comics are now 75 cents, but look at this nice white Mando paper on these Atari Forces!” And of course there was Baxter paper for DC’s $1.50 (or occasionally more) books, but that extra expense was well worth it for the thicker paper and better, clearer printing and bright coloring (which took ’em a bit to figure out so that it wasn’t too bright.) (And let us not speak about Flexographic printing.)
Now by the time we got to the mid-1990s, I wasn’t paying that much attention to paper stock names and such, aside from missing the good ol’ days of just plain ol’ Baxter and Mando paper. A couple of these paper/format types I either forgot or just didn’t know in the first place. But “Miraweb” is a name I already knew:
…though I associated that with Frank Miller’s Ronin from a decade earlier, but I might be remembering that incorrectly. But I do recall these comics, particularly the Superman books, suddenly getting printed on really shiny paper (and priced at $1.95). It was an attractive package, with clear and colorful printing and felt like it was worth the price.
Okay, I didn’t remember the name “Fracote” gettin’ thrown around:
…but I honestly can’t recall any significant difference to the texture or printing of these titles. Granted, I wasn’t reading a lot of these specific books at he time (I did have those Babylon 5 books), but I don’t recall ever thinking “wow, look at this paper stock!” or anything.
“Rebax” feels new to me too:
…and I don’t believe I thought anything about the paper stock here either. I mean, aside it was nice and presented the art well, but at some time between being a fan in the mid-1980s and working behind the counter in the mid-1990s my concern with what these things were being printed on dissipated beyond “is this readable and colored well?”
Right now, I couldn’t tell you the paper stock of any comic book being currently published, unless something is just obviously printed on newsprint. I do wonder occasionally, like that recent G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero omnibus is massively thick but incredibly light. That paper has no weight to it, and yet seems sturdy and presents the artwork quite well.
What I notice more nowadays is the paper being used for covers. The real nadir of this was Gladstone using “self-covered” comics, where the cover was the exact same stock as the story pages inside. Like torn covers? This is for you!
And a number of comics today, particularly from the Big Two, have cover stock that is…not the most durable. I mean, sure, DC will ding you an extra buck for the cardstock variants, but for most comic covers the quality can vary. Sometimes the paper is slick, sometimes it’s barely slicker, sometimes it feels like it should be interior page stock (though still a little thicker, but not much more so, than the pages inside the specific comic)…it’s just all over the map.
This is an interesting artifact of the time, one you don’t see today, of retailers ballyhooing their printing quality. Comics look quite nice now, certainly much improved over what our caveman ancestors had to tolerate. But I kind of like not knowing stuff like the specific manufacturer name of the paper used. Just make it legible and somewhat durable, that’s all I ask.
And by the way;
…no, comic retailers are never satisfied. It’s just our nature.
So, alas, I’ve been going through the collection of a late customer of mine…a longtime customer, in fact, going back to the early days of my toil at the previous place of employment. Probably about 30 years or so…when I opened up my shop, he followed me over, which I always appreciated.
He passed away last year, and his brother brought me most of his collection then, but this week brought me several more boxes. I took a first pass through them and pulled out some items of interest…and he was a huge Lobo fan, so he had lots of Lobo ‘n’ related comics, including one I haven’t seen in decades. I thought I’d present a few of them here today.
From the “Lobo-related” category, here are a couple of parodies, starting with Spoof Comics Presents #9, featuring “Hobo: Patricide.”
The title is a parody of the 1992 DC Comics mini Lobo: Infanticide, a title I still can’t believe actually made it to the stands. Anyway, like many parody comics of the period, part of the joke was gender-flipping the characters, so we get a Lady Lobo here. This Is A Fetish for Someone™, as a very wise and stunningly handsome person once said.
Speaking of which, there was a later one-shot by the same company titled Wolverbroad Vs. Hobo…Wolverbroad being a parody of, oh, I don’t know, the old Legion of Super-Heroes character Timber Wolf I think.
In the non-gender-flipped category of parody was this comic, somewhat surprisingly from Eclipse Comics in 1992. It’s Loco Vs. Pulverine #1:
…Pulverine, of course, being a parody of, oh, I don’t know, Puck from Alpha Flight I think. This comic had an amusing wraparound cover, inspired by the similar cameo-filled cover on the famous Superman Vs. Muhammad Ali treasury.
Here’s the back cover:
…where you can see such luminaries as Hagar the Horrible:
…and here is celebrity power couple Krazy and Ignatz from the classic Krazy Kat strip.
Plus, here’s a special note from creator Gary Yap:
Last but not least is the comic I was shocked to see in this collection…well, okay, not shocked that in was in this collection, given the preponderance of Lobo stuff, just shocked that I’ve finally seen it again after all this time. It’s the infamous The Wisdom of Lobo one-shot from 1992:
I last wrote about this on my site in 2011 in these two posts, in which I noted I hadn’t seen it in forever even back then.
To recap, this came in a slipcased set, with the slipcase featuring an image of Lobo’s face. The books inside were Lobo’s Greatest Hits (a compilation of early Lobo appearances from Omega MenLobo mini-series, and this Wisdom of Lobo thing. We sold a lot of these sets, and demand for Lobo was high enough that we even broke up some of these sets and sold the components individually.
I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that the Grand Comics Database included a note on the Wisdom book that retailers were annoyed by the gimmick (in that the 64 pages inside were blank, you see), but that note seems to be gone now. But as I said then, it didn’t really annoy us, and when pricing out the components of the slipcased set vis-à-vis its retail price, the Wisdom book was essentially free.
I didn’t remember then what we sold the Wisdom comic for on its own, but the copy from this collection still had the old shop’s price tag. For a mere $1.50, you could have had this Lobo-branded sketch book for your very own.
To continue repeating myself from those older posts, I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more of these over the decades. I know we sold a ton of those slipcased sets, I figured eventually some would make their way back to me. It took 32 years, and the unfortunate passing one of my favorite customers, but here it is, filling in that little gap in my remembrances of comics retail past.
Thanks, Dale, for the opportunity to see these weird Lobo things again. I’ll find good homes for them.
I want to address a matter that’s been at the back of my mind. One that was spurred on by some unexpected shopping patterns at my store.
Over the last few days I’ve seen an uptick in sales on work by Neil Gaiman, graphic novels and comics and such. And the reason this surprises me is that, well, Mr. Gaiman is in some hot water at the moment. And frankly, it doesn’t look good.
Now, it’s possible folks haven’t heard about what’s been going on. Which is fair, a number of people restrict their interactions with comics to “buying comics” and don’t, say, pursue that interest via online news or whathaveyou.
It’s also possible that they have heard, and are buying the books out of some solidarity with Gaiman, showing him support in his time of need.
Or that they heard and don’t care one way or the other. He’s just a name on a spine or in a credit box, and that’s it. No particular attachment one way or the other.
Whatever the reason, and I am sure there are more nuanced ones that those options, nevertheless I saw more sales on his books than I’ve seen in a bit.
Thinking to a comparable circumstance, Warren Ellis‘ work I haven’t seen any interest in lately. I had a person picking up Transmetropolitan trades about the time news broke about him, but that was pretty much it, despite DC and other publishers keeping his work available for order.
And I get the occasional request for back issues of Joss Whedon‘s Astonishing X-Men. Marvel also has collections of this title either available or soon to be.
Which has me wondering, if/when Gaiman is found to be guilty of any or all accusations, what happens to his published work?
Look, I know all things considered, this is the least important part of the equation. Women getting their stories heard and everyone, including Gaiman, getting their day in court is top priority. “Publishing funnybooks” is the last thing anyone’s worrying about.
But I’m still curious. DC Comics has put a lot…I mean, a lot…into Gaiman’s Sandman. I presume that’s still a solid seller for them, in its multitude of formats. Plus, there’s a high profile TV show based on it, about to launch a second season, in which Gaiman himself was heavily involved. So there’s some real money at stake here.
Is Netflix going to pull Sandman off its service? Unlikely. Will it get a third season? Frankly, given that it’s Netflix, I’m surprised it got a second season, so if it were not renewed, that wouldn’t be a huge shock, and it may only likely be partially related to Gaiman’s conduct.
Just as it seems unlike DC will drop Sandman from its graphic novel backlist or any current or future projects. I expect both in DC’s case and the TV show’s case, if the Gaiman thing goes even more south than it already has, we’ll see a lot less “FROM THE BESTSELLING AUTHOR OF…” blurbs in relation to him. Stuff will stay in print, like Ellis’ and Whedon’s, but without the huge “ANOTHER MASTERPIECE BY THIS GREAT WRITER” in the solicit copy.
I can see them as pushing the Sandman and related characters as being, well, “bigger” than the man who created them. Emphasizing other writers and artists who work on the material, new and old. Yes, Gaiman will likely still get checks, but aside from a tiny “created by” blurb inside you’ll never know he was ever involved. They’ll be “DC Comics Characters” more than “Neil Gaiman’s Characters.” Much like how Astonishing X-Men is an X-Men Story, not a Joss Whedon story.
And then there’s Miracleman.
Miracleman, with all its publishing and ownership travails, finally, finally continuing its story over the last year or so after a 30-something year interim, with Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham back at the helm.
It’s been noted before that Miracleman comics coming back haven’t been that big of a deal in today’s market, for varied reasons as “culture has moved on” and “Marvel really futzed it up.” Frankly the only sales pitch the series had for modern audiences was, and no slight meant to Mr. Buckingham, “Here Is A Comic Book Written by Neil Gaiman.”
Well, there goes that, probably.
There’s still a final chapter/mini-series pending, and I lay pretty good odds that it’s going to be drawn and written by Mark Buckingham. He’s already been listed as “co-writer” so I suspect that “co-” dropping off in short order. Maybe with an “additional material by NG” if necessary.
Given the DC Universe Rebirth-esque reveal at the end of this Timeless one-shot, it’s pretty safe to say Marvel’s anxious to get Marvelman (as distinct from Miracleman) into the Marvel Universe proper. As such, with controversy a-brewin’, Miracleman: The Dark Age may be pushed through a little more quickly than expected, so Marvel can get that behind them and into laying groundwork in their comics for that Marvelman movie someday.
Or they’ll just quash it entirely…”indefinite postponement” and all that. Who knows.
Outside of the unique Miracleman situation, I suspect no matter what happens, DC and other publishers aren’t going to give up their cash cows. They might try to disguise the cows a bit, changing the brands on their sides so it’s less obvious they came from Gaiman’s farm, but they’ll keep milking them as long as they can.
Again, none of this is important, considering the situation. It’s just something that crossed my mind and thought I’d try to work out here. Suffice to say…this situation is so very disappointing and saddening.
So in response to my ponderings about why the I Dream of Jeannie comic only ran two issues and why special attention seemed to be paid to Barbara Eden’s likeness, reader RAR unpacked the following:
“Mark Evanier has addressed this topic a few times. Basically, the publisher would send the comic to the relevant studio for approval, and sometimes the studio would send the comic to the individual actors (or their representatives) for their approval, and sometimes those actors (or, more likely, their representatives) would get very particular about how they were depicted.”
Additionally, RAR mentions a specific example, brought up by Mr. Evanier, that Forrest Tucker was being particular about his likeness in the F-Troop comic, resulting in a photostat of an approved drawing used repeatedly. Which sounds similar to something I’ve heard about the Kyle Baker-illustrated Dick Tracy comics from Disney, tying into the Warren Beatty movie, where Beatty only approved certain drawings of his face to be used in the books. (And by the way, the War Rocket Ajax boys looked at the series recently…it’s a good comic!)
I did some searching on Mr. Evanier’s site, using a variety of search terms (if Mr. Evanier reads this, I apologize for the weird inputs) and couldn’t track down any stories related to this. I even checked through his three paperback collections of columns from the Comic Buyers’ Guide and no dice. I totally admit that I may have missed it, and Mr. Evanier is a very prolific writer and only some of his writing is represented on his website and in his books. It certainly seems like something he would have written about!
EDIT: It’s been pointed out in the comments that Mr. Evanier commented on that F-Troop post with information that backs up RAR above, which I somehow missed. Sigh.
However, in doing an internet search, I did find some discussion of the likeness issues in both F Troop and I Dream of Jeannie, presented on another blog well over a decade ago. This entry here shows how they dealt with the Approved Forrest Tucker likeness in storytelling. And this entry about I Dream of Jeannie focuses on the repeated use of a specific Larry Hagman likeness, which I somehow missed in my brief glances through the copies I had. The writer also mentions some repeated usage of a Barbara Eden likeness, but notes the artist put a little more effort into actually drawing the character.
Sean asks if that was Tony Tallarico on the art chores for I Dream of Jeannie. Apparently the answer is no…the Grand Comics Database entry gives a name with a “?” after it, with an additional note that it’s unlikely this person was the artist (based on information from the previously-linked blogger) so the credit remains unknown.
At any rate, the mystery remains as to why only two issues. Again, I presume sales weren’t great, the usual reason comics don’t continue.
• • •
Hey, you may have heard a little something about Robert Downey Jr. being cast as Doctor Doom for a couple of forthcoming and presumably hastily-rewritten Avengers movies. “What’s up with
that?” you may be asking. I mean, beyond the “look we got RDJ back, please start watching our movies again” flopsweat of it all. Well, my pal Kurt
devoted an episode of his podcast,
Welcome to Geektown, discussing the connection between Iron Man and Doctor Doom, and lays out a reasonable theory as to how they’ll be using Doom in the movies. It’s a short podcast, and worth a listen!
So this week is the release of the Labyrinth #1 facsimile edition from Boom!/Archaia, reprinting the three issue adaptation of the Jim Henson movie originally published by Marvel in 1985.
It does look nice, with the artwork by John Buscema and Romeo Tanghal appearing nice and crisp on the white paper. The paper stock used for the cover feels a little more fragile than I’d like, but that’s kinda par for the course in comics now, so I’ll live.
But one thing that does bug me is this little bit of business right here on the front cover:
Yup, they reproduced the original cover down to the original prices. Before you ask, no, this comic is NOT selling for seventy-five cents, but rather for the $4.99 price indicated on the back cover. Which of course means I’m going to be asked “is this really $0.75?” all day.
Usually, when DC and Marvel do their facsimile editions, they either obscure/remove the original price, or change it “499¢” or whatever. Leaving the original price on the cover for a reprint like this always leads to customer confusion. Especially in recent years, when comics have been released with actual low gimmick prices, or seeing something supposedly selling for 75¢ would not be unheard of. It looks like this comic is getting a little sign under it on the shelf saying “REALLY IT’S $4.99.”
So anyway, publishers, don’t do this. It’s annoying for me as a comics retailer, and it’s frustrating for customers, some of whom will think someone’s pulling a fast one.
I did see some wondering online about why this is being reprinted in the first place, and I think the obvious answer is, like I said above, Boom!/Archaia have been doing Henson comics for a while now. This is just another one, only a reprint instead of new material. Hopefully they’ll get around to reprinting Dark Crystal next.
* I mean, they took the time to edit the Marvel logo out of the corner box, right?
So Thom H. and Chris V brought up the X-Files comics in my movie adaptation post from a week or so ago. Okay, X-Files comics are technically a TV show adaptation, though it would get a couple of movies eventually.
I’ve written about the X-Files comic before, a whole ten years ago (and it’s weird to read about me processing a collection of old comics for the previous place of employment and not my own store). Anyway, way back then I wrote about how when that first issue (picured above) originally came out in the mid-1990s, the crash still affecting the market, we were caught off-guard by how much demand we had for it.
So much demand, in fact, that a second printing was rushed out, with the added bonus of individual serial numbers appended to the covers:
Serial numbers were cropping up a bit on comics around this time, as you can read here. A print run of 120,000 seems mindboggling today, though I suppose Marvel’s new Ultimate books may be approaching those numbers. The intent of the serial number was to boost the “collectability of the reprint in the collectors market, though they needn’t had bothered given the demand from the unconverted who couldn’t care less about printings and whatnot.
The X-Files comics sold relatively well for its short run, ending with the demise of publisher Topps Comics in 1998, more or less. Now at this point in history, I don’t recall if those comics were nearing their natural end sales wise after the initial faddishness had worn off, or if they were cut down in their prime by the publisher going under, but my guess is that they were still doing okay overall.
There were a number of spin-offs and one-shots and repackagings of the material and whathaveyou which either tells me demand was still high, or they were making up for slumping sales with volume, volume, VOLUME. One of those series, X-Files: Season One:
…gets back to the initial discussion point I was having here about comic book adaptations of other media. As the title suggests, they were adapting the first season’s episodes into funnybook form, so this was a somewhat rare case of a direct comic book adaptations of specific television show episodes, versus just doing movies. There was a lot of material doing new stories based on TV shows, but not so much translating broadcast episodes into comics (though, as mentioned, a couple current/forthcoming Star Wars comics are doing just that).
How did it sell? Again, my memories of the period aren’t as sharp as I’d like, but I feel fairly safe in saying the TV-based comics didn’t sell as well the ones with original stories. They were still picked up by the X-Files diehards,
And how were they? Couldn’t tell you. They were likely competent at worst, and likely visually interesting, given the creative teams. But here they were, Topps Comics generating essentially souvenirs of TV episodes for for the fans. (Though as has been pointed out, maybe some fans first encountered these specific stories this way, perhaps not even realizing they were retellings of TV shows.)
Some additional info you might find interesting regarding these: the Wikipedia entry for “Topps Comics” has an excerpt from an interview with Tony Isabella, talking about the apparently grueling approval process they had to go through for each X-Files comic.
A couple more follow-ups on the movie adaptations post:
Cassandra Miller mentions the adaptations for Dark Crystal and Raiders of the Lost Ark, of which I’d only ever read the former. I remember being very impressed by the detailed art in that comic, though I can’t remember who did it at the moment. Hang on a sec.
[TEMPUS FUGIT]
Ah, ’twas Bret Blevins that did the deed, with inking by Vince Colletta, Rick Bryant and Richard Howell. It was an appealingly done adaptation as I recall, fitting the story into about 50 pages over two standard comic books (or in one Marvel Super Special magazine. Alas, those comics departed my collection in a long-ago purge and I can’t present panels from them for you, but I’m sure they’re out there somewhere. But I think I’m assured enough in my memory of them to tell folks to seek ’em out.
Speaking of the Marvel Super Specials…I kind of have a small nostalgic feeling for those, featuring the adaptation in full in one issue, along with supporting articles about the making of the movie or whatever. And then splitting up the adaptation over two or three issues of a regular comic book mini-series. It was a clever ploy, getting their coveted space on magazine stands where comics weren’t necessarily offered, but repurposing that same material for the comic book market.
As for Raiders…I don’t know, I just never bothered with the comic book versions. I came to the movie slightly later, seeing it in a military base theater some time after its regular release, so I may have missed the initial heyday of the comic book adaptations. And I didn’t even do much more than glance at Marvel’s later Further Adventures of Indiana Jones, the first couple of issues featuring some lesser John Byrne work.
But back to Raiders…oh, it’s by Walt Simonson, John Buscema, and Klaus Janson! Look, why didn’t anyone tell me about this, that sounds great. I honestly just didn’t have time for Indy comics for whatever reason. I just wasn’t all that interested in The Adventures of Indiana Jones outside of the films themselves, oh, and video games like Fate of Atlantis, the Atari 2600 cart, and the arcade machine. I’ve poked through a couple or three of them over the years, even picking up a mini-series or two from Dark Horse. Nothin’ stuck. Just not for me I guess. Not even the Young Indiana Jones TV show got much viewing.
But hearing about the creative team on he Raiders adapataion makes me more interested to take a look now. Pretty sure I have a couple of them in the back issue bins at th shop, so I’ll make sure to take a glance.
And Aaron G. notes the Bill Sienkiewicz-illustrated adaptation of Dune, the 1980s film by David Lynch, based on the book by Frank Herbert. I’m a real Dune neophyte, having only seen parts of the movie, and have never even read the book (much to pal Tegan‘s chagrin). All I can tell you from a retailer’s perspective is that the issues command some higher prices nowadays, and are in great demand. I even had a really beat-up copy of the Marvel Super Special version that blew out the door almost as soon as I priced it.
The comics do have striking Sienkiewicz covers:
Maybe I should read these instead of seeing the movie or reading the book. Then I can fake it and join in on all those Dune discussion groups that pop up in coffee shops all across our great country and sound like I know what I’m talking about.
“Yes, of course, I like how Sting was drawn in this one pan–”
[EVERYONE STARES]
“UM I MEAN how his face was framed onscreen. Yeah, that’s what I meant.”
You all left a lot of great responses to Wednesday’s post about comic book adaptations of movies and TV shows, and they deserve responses from me…but I’m going to just do a couple today and I’ll get to more next week.
First off, Adam Farrar leans in close to say
“My favorite comic adaptation are the three issues of Dick Tracy by Kyle Baker and John Moore. The third issue is a adaptation of the movie but the first two issues are essentially prequels establishing the backstories of the main characters in the movie. I only had the third issue for many years and loved it. Getting the first two issues years later was a revelation.”
Oooooh, those are good’uns:
It was as Adam said…two “prequel” issues with an adaptation of the film in the final installment. They were available in a deluxe squarebound format and a staplebound “newsstand” format, but either version was nicely printed, showcasing Kyle Baker’s beautiful art. If I recall interviews with Mr. Baker correctly, the art initially featured a more-faithful-to-the-strips Tracy, but someone higher up, I can’t imagine who, wanted Warren Beatty’s likeness inserted in there instead. It all looks great anyway, even if that unnecessary change dates it a bit, which I emphasise is not Baker’s fault.
There is a trade paperback collecting the series out there, long out of print like the comics of course. But I think the comics should be relatively easy enough to find. And you should find them.
Next up is Snark Shark, who toothily reminds me
“Someone (I think DC?) did an adaptation of the FIRST [Bill and Ted] movie, and it was as bland as possible.”
And yes indeedy, in 1989 there was this oddball thingie:
Titled Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure Movie Adaptaion, it was a 36-page mostly-adless retelling of the film, adapted by Bob Rozakis and MAD‘s Angelo Torres. According to the Grand Comics Database, it was a cereal giveaway, though I always assumed it was distributed in video stores. (I got my copy in a dollar box somewhere.)
It’s funny this came up as I was talking to my pal Brook (the same Brook who inspired me to buy this and these) about this very comic book, as he’s a big fan of Mr. Torres (and also owns some art from one of his MAD paperbacks). I’ve been wanting to find my copy of this in my currently-in-disarray vast Mikester comic archives so Brook can check it out.
Now I was going to counter Mr. Shark’s dismissal of the comic, but it turns out I talked about this comic way back in 2005, when there was still joy and hope in the world, but it looks like I kinda agree with him. To wit, here’s what slightly-less-old me had to say:
“…It’s a straightforward adaptation of the first film. It hits all the beats of the movie, but doesn’t really add anything to the material…of course, it really suffers in comparison to Dorkin’s fabulously-nutty adaptation of Bogus Journey. In addition, the art seems scratchy and rushed…Torres’ caricatures are usually right on, but as a whole the production seems very rough.”
In retrospect, it’s very possible this was a rush job, crankin’ out these pages in time to meet a rapidly-closing deadline, so maybe there’s that. But yeah, it’s a little lackluster, but given it was distributed as a cereal box mail-away premium, this wasn’t the place for edgy or challenging art. The wraparound cover based on the movie’s one-sheet is good, though.
Thanks for reading, pals, and we’ll get to more movie comics next time!
So I spotted on the back of the newest Marvel Previews an add for the forthcoming Star Wars comic book Ahsoka, starring the character who came to prominence in animation and recently jumped into live action portrayed by Rosario Dawson. A “fan-favorite” in the classic sense, as folks do seem to genuinely like the character, and at least at my shop toys and comics based on her usually do quite well.
The text of the ad reads “Ahsoka Tano gets her her own miniseries adaptation” and I groaned a little bit, as I realized it’s not new stories, but comic book retellings of the story from the recent Disney+ TV show. Now my immediate response was of course mature and reasoned…posting a meme to Bluesky:
…and informing said response was the rather lackluster response I’ve had at the shop to other recent Star Wars comic book adaptations of other media. The recent Obi-Wan barely sells for me, I’ve had folks drop Thrawn because it’s adapting a novel, even The Mandalorian, the strongest selling of the bunch, has begun to flag. I’ve had multiple folks express their disappointment that they were just getting retellings of stories they’ve already enjoyed.
Way back in Ye Olden Tymes, before VCRs and various forms of disc players, a comic book adaptation of a movie was one of the few ways to relive the experience at your convenience. And TV shows…well, there weren’t many direct adaptations of TV episodes in comics, mostly focusing on new stories, but it was still a way to relive a program outside of its normal broadcast times, back in the days before you could pick up (or download) complete season sets.
While some of these were…utilitarian, shall we say, several did have some artistic merit and were completely enjoyable on their own terms. I still think Marvel’s Time Bandits comic is a classic, for example, and I enjoy looking at it even though I have the Criterion Blu-ray of the film just on the shelf over there. Evan Dorkin’s version of Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey is another great movie-to-comic translation, with Dorkin’s wild cartooning creating an adaptation that arguably surpasses the source material.
Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Alien. Hook, featuring work by Charles Vess and Gray Morrow, among many others. The absolute infamous madness of the adaptation of Steven Spielberg’s 1941 by Steve Bissette and Rick Veitch. The beautiful Jerry Ordway art on the comic for the first Tim Burton Batman film.
I could keep going. I have a soft spot for many of the Star Trek movie comics DC produced (even with the occasional storytelling glitch).
But in this modern age, where everything is just a click away (legally or otherwise), the desire to relive cinematic experiences in funnybook form just isn’t there like it used to be. Even doing new stories based on films and TV isn’t quite the draw it used to be…but it seems for folks attracted to certain properties, if they had a choice, they’d want their comics to be new material rather than rehashing stories they’ve already experienced.
I’m not saying there isn’t an audience now for comics like Obi-Wan and Ahsoka. In fact, I expect Ahsoka #1 to sell quite well, just by virtue of being a Big First Issue for the popular character. I’m expecting a big dropoff on #2, however, as readers realize it’s just stories from the TV show, and as speculators stick with thier #1s and eschew later installments.
In addition, there will be the folks who don’t care it’s an adaptation, and want to enjoy a comic book version of the show. And there’s the simple fact that not everyone has Disney+, and this is their access to these particular adventures.
Now, I realize Marvel may have its hands tied in regards to what they can and can’t do with their licensed properties. I have no idea. All I know is the majority of my customers, when they hear “adaptation,” decide the comic is not for them, no matter how expertly it is artistically executed. While I’ll still sell copies, the number I’ll sell has been capped off.
I really do wish the. best for the creative team on this new Ahsoka comic. I hope it does well, not just for their sakes, but for my own store as well. Selling more comics is preferable to selling fewer, after all. And if Ahsoka does well, enough, maybe a follow-up with all-new stories will be in the offing. One can only hope.
Thanks for your patience over the last couple of weeks, as personal stuff and medical stuff (which I suppose is also personal stuff) got in the way of my doing important things, like posting to my comic book weblog. So it’s been sorta thin content around here lately, but I should be fattening it up again next week!
In the meantime, let me cover a couple of things:
Sean asked in my last post:
“Do the modern fans still go ape for gorilla covers or is it all too much monkey business…?
“Also, any chance this will lead to an Angel and the Ape spin-off series?”
First, nice use of primate references in your initial question. But what Sean is referring to is legendary artist and former DC Comics head honcho Carmine Infantino’s instructions for what makes a comic book cover sell. You can see a pic of the list of those elements that’s been going around here, which I’ll transcribe in case, like many other sites I’ve linked to over the decades, that site disappears forever.
Gorillas
Dinosaurs
Motorcycles
A purple background
The city in flames
The hero crying
A direction question to the reader
These items were all semi-famously used on this Bill Wray cover for Secret Origins #40 (1989):
…though “the city on fire” is represented simply as “fire” here:
…and I’ve heard that particular element as both just “fire” and “city on fire” in discussions of Infantino’s list. (Speaking of which, I’m not sure the origins of that piece of paper that I’ve linked to on Reddit, and have seen posted elsewhere. It even looks like that paper’s been around a bit what with the folds and creases.)
Anyway, back to Sean’s question. The monkeys, do they help comic sales? Well, judging by the performance of DC’s Ape-Ril Special this week at my shop, I gotta say, “well, no, not really.” I sold a LOT of new comics this week, more than normal in fact, but only moved a couple of DC’s latest swing at comics starring our furry cousins. Now, I picked it up, primariy because I saw Monsier Mallah, the French mercenary ape (don’t look at me like that) for the Doom Patrol connection, and Detective Chimp (who is great) and I’m hoping Angel and the Ape turn up in there as well. No, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but it’s next on this toppling pile of comics and graphic novels I’m slowly working through.
Do any of those elements still work in general? I haven’t really gathered enough evidence on my own to say if there is an overall positive influence on sales by any of those items just on their own. I feel like the only common denominator to high sales being generated solely by a comic’s cover (excluding things like “speculators”) is striking cover designs. One example I can think of it Calexit #1 from 2017:
…which I just kept selling and selling and reordering and selling. Now granted, I’m in California, so maybe that helped it along too, but that cover grabbed eyes and there’s hardly a monkey or anything on fire in sight. (There is a bear, which would make Gail Simone happy.)
Onto Sean’s second comment…friends, I am an unabashed Angel and the Ape fan:
…having a complete collection of their all-too-few appearances. As such, I would totally buy a new series. Look, we all know the greatest high concept for a comic book is “Native Americans Vs. Dinosaurs,” as embodied by Turok: Son of Stone. But a close second is “Pretty Girl and Gorilla: They’re Detectives” and I’m ready for it. I’ll even write it for them if they’d like, if they won’t mind the occasional Swamp Thing cameo.
« Older Entries
