From: rickard@anasazi.com (Ronald J. Rickard Jr)
Subject: Re: Jack "King" Kirby: ripped off by Marvel
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.011326.12704@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <BzqL3L.A60@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tpjg9663@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Johnston) writes:
>
>>>You mean after Robin died and Supes died and Spiderman got married in
>>>Shea Stadium and since all the little bat-mites wrote protest letters
>>>about Michael Keaton that ANYBODY OTHER THAN FANBOYS WILL TAKE COMICS
>>>SERIOUSLY. If we don't love and appreciate the medium enough, nobody
>>>else EVER will.
>
>>We are not fanboys, and we are taking the medium seriously; we love
>>	and appreciate the medium.  
>>DC and Marvel have promoted certain garbage titles and poorly-done
>>	comics to the hilt.  
>>Both statements are true.
>
>Marvel and especially DC have made it very embarrasing for collectors
>like myself who buy comics for the art and stories, and not the latest
>media blitz or marketing campaign. And it is DC's view of comics that
>pilfers out into the newspapers, the whole idea that comics are for
>overgrown kids who forgot to grow up.

It seems to me the above summarizes what I think is your real reason for
hating Marvel and DC, John.  Your seem to have a hangup with what most
adults think of comics and people who read comics, instead of just accepting
that some comics will be aimed at younger readers (Marvels and DCs) and
some will be aimed at mature readers.  If you are "embarrassed" to
collect comics, why blame it on Marvel and DC?  Would it really be better
if both companies, or all comic companies for that matter, just published
mature reader titles?  For you maybe, but I would still bet the average 
person still wouldn't look at them, and they would still have the idea 
that "comics are for overgrown kids", simply because of the fact that the
media uses pictures and very little words to tell a story.

>>>> Some are aimed for adults,
>
>>>who think like children and write protest letters about Batman....
>
>>Well, if you're asked to not make blanket statements about all comics,
>>why not make some about all comics readers?  Sheesh.
>
>No, but I have covered a lot of bases. Are you aware how many "adults"
>still restrict themselves to the x-trash? Or complain about how Micheal
>Keaton isn't "macho" enough to play Batman (which is probably why you
>saw more of the Penguin and Catwoman and almost NOTHING of Batman
>this summer).

So?  And many of us "adults" who read comics don't restrict ourselves to
many of these titles that you seem to have a problem with.

>>>[...]  No, comics are
>>>just a corporate commodity to be thrust in the trash or bought and sold
>>>and collector shows for obscene amounts of money to non-comics speculators
>>>who see a chance to make money. Comics = blowjobs.
>
>>I accept comics as an artform, and at the same
>>time accept that many comics creators work for Marvel & DC and
>>don't own the rights to the characters they work on.
>
>As much as we may enjoy their work, they will never be fully appreciated
>at the corporate Marvel/DC headquarters - and this includes artists for
>all tastes - from Sergio Aragones to Whilce Portacio to Rick Veitch.

Who cares what the corporate companies think?  If you want to appreciate
an artist or a writer, then do so.  Whether or not a company does,
should have no bearing on this.

>>Comics are an artform.  Comics creators are adults who shouldn't sign
>>contracts they are not willing to fulfill.  
>
>To quote you out of context - which is fine if the tables are turned - are
>you praising the assembly line vision of comic books practiced at the
>Big Two. Pump it out, find writers and artists, and if they kick up a 
>stink, hire new ones who won't whine and complain.

So?  When a writer or artist goes and works for DC and Marvel they know
full well what they are getting into.  If they don't want to be treated
like what you describe, they can go work somewhere else.  This is a 
possibility in the comic field today.

>>>> Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for the Image creators for
>>>> deciding to leave the guaranteed audience (and paychecks) of Marvel
>>>> and go out on their own.
>
>>>They didn't leave their audience. That's the whole point. They don't
>>>need the Marvel/DC corporate cartel to find it. And (if they manage
>
>>The Image boys may not have needed Marvel to find their audience,
>>but they sure did use Marvel in that way.
>
>Is that a PROBLEM? Marvel and DC practically OWN the superhero. Find a 
>kid who buys comics for superheroes. 99 times out of 100 it will be one
>of the big two (and most likely Marvel). Are we supposed to kiss their
>fragging feet because Miller and McFarlane and Jim Lee and Alan Moore
>all made it big at the big two. Who is worshipping at what temple here?

I don't think kissing the big two's feet was even suggested.  All I read
was that through Marvel, the Image creators were able to find thier
audience.

>>>As for your crack about finding new titles, I have probably seen more
>>>kinds of comic books than anybody else on this newsgroups. Some well
>>>drawn, some not well drawn, some meant for some audiences, some for 
>>>others. I don't believe that comics = toothpaste = porn = blowjob.
>>>But I know that anybody who just regards comics as corporate commodities
>>>is actively commiting themselves to the destruction of the whole comic
>>>book genre.  
>
>>My 'crack' about finding new titles was meant sincerely.  Some
>>creators are putting out quality material, and their work doesn't
>>deserve to be degraded simply because much of the mainstream comics
>>work currently being done is (to put it charitably) aimed at 
>>adolescents.
>
>No, but it is precisely those adults-acting-like-adolescents who are ruining
>the whole genre. It's almost pathetic, reading in the newpaper about all
>the morons who went into "mourning" over Superman's death, or some lady
>in the comic shop who went and bought the Supermans for her kid and as
>some kind of investment. These people make me sick to my stomach. In the real
>world, comics are nothing more than kid's entertainment. And what they see
>of comic collectors, especially of the middle-aged fanboy who still 
>salivates at the latest Flash comic, is someone who refuses to grow up.
>They never see the comics that are really worth collecting - only the
>trash, and this is the picture of our medium that is fed by the distributors
>and most comic shop owners. "Buy your stuff, I just want your money" they
>say to the little kids in their shop. Sharks all of them. Do they really
>care about the medium or just the cash? 

There you go again.  It sounds to me like your big hangup is what other
people think of the average comic reader.  Instead of worrying about what
other people think, why don't you just read what you enjoy.  It seems 
simple enough to me.  You are never going to be able to change everyone's
opinion of a comic book.

>If anything, it is that middle-aged adolescent who is "degrading" the
>comic book genre. And it is the middle-aged adolescent who writes the
>books on comics or gets interviewed in the newspaper over the latest
>company scam. Not real collectors. Which is why, in the future, comic
>books really will be junk, trash, porn, blow-jobs and toothpaste. Just
>another corporate commodity aimed at kids. 

Why don't you consider these so called "middle-aged adolescents" real
collectors?  Because they don't read what you like?  Because they have
different interests than you?  I don't see how anybody who enjoys
reading comics is going to degrade the comic genre.  If you read what
you like, and they read what they like, I don't think any "balance" of
mature titles vs younger reader titles is going to tip in one direction
and consume the other.  So, mature reader titles will continue to exist.
They will always be there as long as people read and support them.  Just 
like Marvel and DCs younger reader titles will always be there for the 
same reason.

					Ron