BWprowl wrote: 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!
It may not have been Hasbro's choice. Marvel likely sold the ad space. (And, the ads are the thing that publications make money on. Circulation money is just a little cushion.) Either way, it is funny.
Comics are nominally aimed at an older base now. But, much of the maturity is the sort of thing aimed at 13 year old boys who think they are hard-core. (Think "Lobo", but minus the parody elements.) Even kiddie books are "aging" up. Comic sales are generally falling, regardless of reader age.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.
The caliber of writing has little to do with the target audience though. Garth Ennis is seen as mature, and his work largely epitomizes the stereotype that comics are written for man-children. "Simpsons" comics are for more clever than many would expect, despite being all-age friendly. Moore's "Watchmen" is seen as being more sophisticated than Gruenwald's more balanced "Squadron Supreme", when its real advantage is that it appeal to the coffer-house crowd.
"Dark Knight" was also *good*. And, some people complained that it was not comic-booky enough, and/or too thinky for an action movie.The Dark Knight was incredibly successful, but largely overlooked by the industry for awards and recognition.
Indie books are often seen as legitimate. For example, if you read self-indulgent trash like "Crumb", you are reading "art". "Maus" is considered legitimate because it is a story about Nazis and Jews that uses cats and mice. (And, artsy types can claim to have read about WWII without having to read a boring history book on the subject.)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.
Dom
-if it is that important, why trivialize it with comics?
