TF Views

Topic for discussion:

A few days ago, I was at the local comic shop, and the owners were complaining about the 80s properties, (TF, GI Joe, He-Man, etc), as well as the fans.

The old chest-nuts about said properties being, or at least starting off as, toy commercials were tossed about. (The normal defense here is that the properties with staying power actually did develop their intellectual property. Of course, the counter-arguement is that such stories are not legitimate as they did not come completely first.)


I have defended the narrative merits of TF and other properties. But, the jab at the fans struck me.

We were characterized as "fair weather fans" but the owners. The basis for this is that we "do not have any characters that we love through thick and thin". We are opportunists who are too quick to add and drop books. Along similar lines, the complained that TF fans were cheap, as we try to haggle. (Mind you, these guys also have broken TFs in their display case priced at $20 and up, for example, a roofless Prowl for $30.)

Granted, the obvious reason for these complaints is that they want to sell comics, and would prefer we buy the same books consistently, and that there not be so many books in the same category that we buy selectively from. And, hey, who would not want to sell broken toys for obscene amounts of money?

But, for whatever reason, the accusation has really stuck with me.

Thoughts?

Dom

Well, it's not like TF books are published consistently, either. So it'd be hard to stick by a character (or this property) through thick and thin.

But, who does that anyway? Take, f'rinstance, Fantastic Four. Now I love the Fantastic Four, I really do. Love everything about 'em. But, say, if Mark Millar's writing 'em? Not havin' any part of that, thank you. If Warren Ellis is writing 'em? In unless it's an "Ultimate" comic. If they've had a spectacular run under the brilliant hand of Walt Simonson, and then right afterwards Tom DeFalco and Paul Ryan take over? Oh, I'm right on outta there like you wouldn't even believe.

Or a current example: My comics store knows to pull any "Power Pack" book that comes out for me. But, say, if a Power Pack book by Geoff Johns and Ethan Van Scier comes out, again, way passing on that one.

On the flip side: I couldn't have cared less about the Punisher until Fraction and Olivetti got "War Journal", which got me hooked right on in. And I'd passed on most everything "Marvel Zombies" related until Fred Van Lente was writing one.

What I'm trying to say here is that the property isn't enough to sell me, really. I need a book with consistent quality to justify my moneys going for it. Transformers books aren't always that high-quality, and on top of that, can be a real pain to find. So I don't tend to buy 'em unless it's something that really catches my interest. Like the "Kup" and "Wheelie" spotlights, which I guess makes those two characters I'll stick right by.

I tend to agree.

Even if one reads a property out of habit, (like you with "Power Pack" or me with TF), there is a difference between habit and slavish devotion.

I tend to buy what I subscribe to until the sub runs out. But, there are people who will read every Spidey book, no matter how hard JMS and Quesada ruin it.

My question is why is the kind of thing Scourge and I do considered unique to fans of 80s properties? Is this perception accurate? If so, what might cause it?

Dom

What it comes down to is that, in a failing comics market (Let's be realistic for a moment?), snobby comic shop owners will more than likely prefer, say, a comics fanboy who has not yet realized that Marvel and DC books are generally kind of cruddy these days, and that the Big Two are slowly driving themselves into the ground. So of course, they want someone who is going to blindly buy Spider-Man books because A) They like Spider-Man and B) Don't know that there's anything *better* out there.

The first time I walked into the comic shop in Indiana, I bought a copy of every back issue of Valiant's Shadowman that they had from a bargain bin, and a TF comic that I don't remember what it was. That, I think, kind of established the books I tend to read--old stuff and obscure stuff. I don't buy mainstream Marvel and DC books because, as said, they tend to be cruddy, especially now. I'm busting through Sandman right now--a book that could arguably be mainstream now, as I'm sure it's on a bundle of Recommended Reading lists, but at the time of its publication, it was certainly not a mainstream book. I buy things that are more on the fringe, because they *do* tend to be better (barring crap like 90s Image--Valiant was Image about five years before Image was Image, and did it better, too) and they're usually more self-contained and less messy.

And then there's Transmetropolitan, which is an awesome book that you haven't read and totally need to. (Seriously, this is the best time to start, with the new TPB printings. I actually found the first two, the only ones out so far, in a Border's the other day. And they're only $15 apiece.)

I understand the practical angle of what they are saying. (And, objectively, I can agree with it. What seller of any good would not want a regular customer who buys automatically?)

It is the whole "you are not fan enough" mentality. It is common, and just, well....bothers me. I do not understand why picking up a book, even being a fan, obligates me (or any reader) to "stick with it through thick and thin". And, why is being a fan a life-time commitment?

Dom
-way too upset by this.

Dominic wrote:The old chest-nuts about said properties being, or at least starting off as, toy commercials were tossed about. (The normal defense here is that the properties with staying power actually did develop their intellectual property. Of course, the counter-arguement is that such stories are not legitimate as they did not come completely first.)

I commented a bit on your post over on CA, but this bit annoys me. I'm not sure the source of the fictional property is in any way relevant to the 'legitimacy' of the final product. A Superman comic might be complete garbage one month, while a Transformers comic might be excellent, and it all depends on how seriously the writer and artist take their job to deliver a quality product. Surely it's the effort and intent that makes a comic book property worth reading or not, not the source of the fiction?

As I said over on CA, it sounds like these shop owners have their noses up in the air, as if superhero properties are somehow higher art than toy based properties. The truth is they're all escapist fantasy, and only as good as the men and women creating them at any one time. There's nothing inherently inferior about toy-based comics and characters.

andersonh1 wrote: As I said over on CA, it sounds like these shop owners have their noses up in the air, as if superhero properties are somehow higher art than toy based properties. The truth is they're all escapist fantasy, and only as good as the men and women creating them at any one time. There's nothing inherently inferior about toy-based comics and characters.

I'd also like to point out real quick-like that most of the superhero comics have toys to shill these days, too. What's the real difference between a superhero book that's been through countless creative teams and has a movie, toys, DVD, t-shirts, and endless other merchandise to help shill and a book that's, granted, a kind of toy advertisement?

Thinking about it further, one could make the argument that with Transformers comics, it's somehow even "artistically purer" than your average superhero property. The biggest-selling TF comics are G1 after all (least I assume so, they seem to make more of those than they do movie-related comics), and it's not like G1's got a major toyline to shill, is it? I mean, the TF property is putting moneys into Hasbro's pocket, and they gotta approve what gets put out there and all, but then again, you're putting money into Time-Warner's pocket with each purchase of a Batman or Sandman book. Transformers comics may be made just to cash in on some fanboy nostalgia, but if a comic's not tryin' to make at least some moneys, no point in publishing it. Even Fantagraphics has a lil' bit of a profit margin they need to make.

The distinction they would make between "Transformers" and a book like "Superman" is that the latter was a comic first. The idea here is that there as a story and character before there was merchandise. (Mind you, anybody who has actually read those old "classics" will tell you that most are objectively terrible. There is a reason that none of the original creators thought the stuff would last. No. Seriously. Has anybody else here actually read early "X-Men" issues?!?!!?) And, as Scourge pointed out, comics are published to make money. The exectution may be lacking, but the intent is to make piles of money.

In terms of story, some mediums are seen as more (or less) legitimate than others. Comics are still seen by many as less legitimate than say....novels or movies.

"Legitimate" comics that fully "use the medium" are usually terrible. "Wow, this guy did not spend money on color, or any kind of quality printing. He must be a genius! This is not commerically viable at all!" (Mind, I am not bashing the guys who cannot *afford* color. But, lets not dress up a lack of resources as anything other than what it is.)

But, toys (and packaging) are not considered "legitimate" by many. It does not matter that Hasbro, (in this case), spends time and money developing (if not protecting) intellectual property elements in their franchises. ("Transformers" did not beat "Go-Bots" by having better toys.) And, apparently therer is a distinction between telling a story using characters that were created by a company (by employees working on company time) and using characters that are owned by a company, but purchased from a guy who probably did not put much thought into them. (Batman? Really?)

Dom
-has no comics to buy this week.

Dominic wrote:It does not matter that Hasbro, (in this case), spends time and money developing (if not protecting) intellectual property elements in their franchises. ("Transformers" did not beat "Go-Bots" by having better toys.)

Man, Hasbro was so confident in the marketing line they had laid out for TF, they let Go-Bots advertise INSIDE the Transformers comics! That just seems cocky!

Dominic wrote:The distinction they would make between "Transformers" and a book like "Superman" is that the latter was a comic first. The idea here is that there as a story and character before there was merchandise. (Mind you, anybody who has actually read those old "classics" will tell you that most are objectively terrible. There is a reason that none of the original creators thought the stuff would last. No. Seriously. Has anybody else here actually read early "X-Men" issues?!?!!?) And, as Scourge pointed out, comics are published to make money. The exectution may be lacking, but the intent is to make piles of money.

I had plenty of fellow art majors in college who looked down on those of us in the graphic design department because 'we were in it for the money'. There is definitely a bias out there, concious or unconcious, towards commerical endeavors. But we all have to make a living after all, just as those early comic book creators did. They weren't in it for the art, they were trying to get the bills paid.

So Transformers or GI Joe began as toy properties that exist to make money rather than as literary properties that exist to make money. Not much difference between the two there. Maybe the comic-shop owners are trying to make some distinction between toys aimed at kids and comics aimed at... what? Kids, teens, possibly college-age. I enjoy some comics as an adult, and so do some of you, but I'd be willing to bet the amount sold falls as you get into an older audience. I certainly used to collect far more titles a month back in the early 90s than I did a few years ago. But the point is that both toys and comics are aimed at younger audiences. I doubt an adult who isn't into either would see much of a distinction. To them it would all be kids' stuff.

And as you point out, the quality of writing and art on those old stories is hardly something to be proud of. I've tried reading some golden age and silver age comics, and it's often torture. Either the art is bad, or the writing is horrible, or both. There are a few gems to be found, but not many.

And how many of these literary properties are little more than rips offs of Superman and Batman anyway? They're derivative rather than original. I can't see any reason to put them up on a pedestal above toy-based comic characters.

In terms of story, some mediums are seen as more (or less) legitimate than others. Comics are still seen by many as less legitimate than say....novels or movies.

And of course, movies about comic book characters are looked down upon. The Dark Knight was incredibly successful, but largely overlooked by the industry for awards and recognition.

"Legitimate" comics that fully "use the medium" are usually terrible. "Wow, this guy did not spend money on color, or any kind of quality printing. He must be a genius! This is not commerically viable at all!" (Mind, I am not bashing the guys who cannot *afford* color. But, lets not dress up a lack of resources as anything other than what it is.)

But, toys (and packaging) are not considered "legitimate" by many. It does not matter that Hasbro, (in this case), spends time and money developing (if not protecting) intellectual property elements in their franchises. ("Transformers" did not beat "Go-Bots" by having better toys.) And, apparently therer is a distinction between telling a story using characters that were created by a company (by employees working on company time) and using characters that are owned by a company, but purchased from a guy who probably did not put much thought into them. (Batman? Really?)

Dom
-has no comics to buy this week.

Like I said, I doubt the average adult not into collecting or comics would make much of a distinction between comics and toy based properties. And neither do I... they're all mass entertainment aimed primarily at a younger audience. Each has it's own virtues, but I wouldn't say that one is better or more legitimate than the other.