Recently in Essays & Thoughts Category

Let's be honest, Marvel Studios are shrewd. Not only are they in the midst of creating a writer's group to pitch and rewrite Marvel projects, they've also been very aggressive in their contract negotiating.

The first thing they did was walk away from Terrence Howard and sign Don Cheadle rather than haggle over his price. Jon Favreau almost walked away due to Marvel not offering him a fair deal. Sam Jackson, who was very excited about being a part of the Marvel movie franchises, practically got dropped as well before a last-minute nine-picture deal was struck (while signing someone to a nine-picture deal might seem like tying up a lot of money, and it certainly is, Marvel is definitely looking at like they're tying Jackson down long-term to work on a fixed rate). Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke, both of whom are in demand, were offered a measly $200,000 before settling on somewhere in the still-low-ball $400,000 neighborhood.

So as everyone probably knows by now, Marvel Studios is looking like it will hire five to six writers to form a sort of Hollywood bullpen, who can create pitches and do rewrites. This formation is getting coverage on a couple of different layers and is only right and proper because despite the fact that this sounds like a rather straight-forward idea, there are a couple of different things going on at once.

First, this is great for Marvel moviegoers. It means that Marvel will be able to create a variety of pitches for several different properties. It also means that since Marvel Studios owns the rights to most of their characters (Sony still owns Spider-Man, and Fox still owns the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Daredevil franchises) the writers are free to drop mentions or have cameos by anyone in the entirety of the Marvel Univese which should result in the films having a richer, deeper fee for it. And since it would be a small group of writers, it's easier for everyone in the room to be on the same page.

Second, it's a bad thing for Marvel moviegoers. By getting this crew together, Hollywood is about to be bombarded by superhero pitches and with the box office bank of Iron Man and Dark Knight, expect distributors to be very interested. This could lead to a glut of movies and TV shows which will flood the market which could then bore audiences and/or mean that several of the projects will be of lower quality.

Third, it's good for writers. Marvel is looking at bringing in already established screenwriters and writers for Marvel Comics. With the current economy, any work is good work in Hollywood. Of course, this also doubles as bad news for aspiring writers as I'm sure there are many Marvel Zombies who read headlines about this program and started to dream that they'd love to work for Marvel. If so, I hope they already have an agent, because otherwise it's just not going to happen. 

Finally, it's horrid for writers. This program is not the most writer-friendly, because it doesn't have to be. With this economy, writers are lining up to be taken advantage of and this deal certainly does that. Before a writer can come in they have to sign a 70-page non-negotiable contract and non-disclosure agreement. What's in the contract? Anything you write in that year is owned by Marvel (a similar clause is what led to DC not having to pay Siegel and Shuster any cash for Superman), plus first look and last refusal on any script written for two years before or after the program. 

All in all, I think this is a good thing but I just want to make sure that everyone is cognizant of the deal with the devil that is being struck. 

I've also enjoyed breaking music down into movements, almost sub-genre stuff. I think it's the history dork in me. For instance, I love to look at the mid-sixties and talk about 'garage rock' bands like the Sonics or the Standells or to look at 'surf rock' bands like Dick Dale or the Beach Boys from the early sixties.

Comic book writing can be similarly broken down, I feel.

British Invasion - Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Garth Ennis - these group tends to take a more adult approach to comic writing, often introducing religious and spiritual themes and undercurrents to their work (from Moore remaking Swamp Thing into an Earth Elemental to Ennis' most famous work Preacher).

X-odus - Erik Larsen, Todd McFarlene, Rob Liefeld, Jim Lee, Whilce Portacio, Jim Valentino, Marc Silvestri - this is the group that defined the ninties, mostly working on X-Men books hence the X in their title. Then they all left to form Image Comics, hence the Exodus pun. For the most part, their stories tend to focus on visuals over narrative (I'd say Larsen is the best exception to this rule).

Crime Writers - Brian Michael Bendis, Ed Brubaker, Brian Azzarello, Greg Rucka - these guys tend to write realistic stories with a great ear for dialogue. Often this group tends to a 'gritty, urban' style but not necessarily. Their writing also tends to do better when taken into a larger picture, for example Azzarello's 100 Bullets or Rucka's Queen and Country.

Continuity Heads - Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Mark Gruenwald - These are the guys who grew up reading the books and tend to really know the characters. They can throw in something that will pay off something that's been dangling for years because you get the feeling that it was truly plaguing them (even if no one else gave a hoot). They also tend to have a great understanding of how the comic world is structured, playing off pre-concieved notions as well as tweaking things to fit together better.

Filmmakers-cum-Writers - Kevin Smith, J. Michael Straczynski, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Singer, Allan Heinberg - these are some of the more famous writers outside of comics (I'd argue that the British Invasion group is the most famous inside comics). They tend to be given a bit of free range on their work because of their name power and they tend to take advantage of that by having their stories be fast paced pop-culture filled adventures where huge things can be at stake.

"Coolafiers" - Frank Tieri, Judd Winick - Before I get going, let me start off by saying I hate to put Winick's name in this group (his autobiography Pedro & Me breaks my heart, Barry Ween is top-notch and I also love his run on Exiles. However, once he went to DC, he joined this list). This is a group that tends to think that they can take a character and update them and make them cool. Similar to continuity heads, except where they might streamline the character and let the innate coolness radiate from within, these guys add emotional baggage to try and 'improve' the character (for example, making Black Lightening choke a man to death). This often makes the characters clunky and takes them further away from what made them great in the first place.

As a filmmaker there are a flood of questions regarding film versus digital video being at the heart of our medium's future. Comics are facing a very similar situation but the question that they are facing is "how will the internet affect comics?"

The obvious answers are that there will be online comics such as Penny Arcade and PVP. The internet will also change how people discover talent through sites such as Comics Portfolio.It's also a way that creators and publishers can keep in contact with each other using email and instant messaging. Not to mention websites analyzing comics, like this very website.

Of course there's all those things and for the most part they've all happened. But that's not the revolution that lies in wait.

You seen, whenever there's a new medium introduced it always takes a while for the media makers to figure out to take advantage of it, both artistically and finaically. When radio first came out, no one knew how to market it, product sponsership was the answer. They would have one product which would sponser an entire program. When television was created, they basically made televised versions of radio plays with stagnant visuals but good writing. It also took a long time to figure out that commericals was a more profitable way of sponsership.

The problem the comic industry now faces with the internet is very similar. There's a great deal of content (decades worth of comics sit in publishers vaults) but there's no way that that the publishers know to make money. They could charge a membership fee but then there's no way to ensure that members won't share images with non-members. There's also advertising but there's no guarentee that people will click on them (a 5 % click through rate is considered a success). So until a better method is discovered, online distribution will not succeed.Until then the internet can only be used for promotion of upcoming books and exhibition of creators' talents.

As for the creative impact, the internet has altered our perception of the page. No longer are the limits of the layout set by the dimensions of the page. The layout can be as wide or as tall as the creator wants it to be.

Truly, this is the dawn of a new age and we all stand on the precipice looking into the great unknown. I don't know exactly what the future holds or even how we'll get there but what a bountiful future it is shaping up to be and what a great time we shall have along the way.

As everyone knows, a mini-series usually refers to a four or six issue run comic that tells a story arc. It is unlike a graphic novel because it is divided up into smaller issues and it is unlike a trade paperback because it is not a part of a larger series. It is also different from the finite runs of comics like Transmet, Sandman, Hitman, Preacher, Cerebus, et cetera.

A mini-series is when a writer has an idea for a story and they tell it. Maybe it's setting up a larger story, like being used as a way to gauge interest in a potential ongoing series. This is no different than the way that television uses pilots to see if a TV series would work.

What is unacceptable is Marvel's recent trend of coming out with a new ongoing series then cancelling it after a few issues and claiming it was a mini-series all along. That's not a mini-series, it's a cancelled ongoing title. I think the fact that Marvel has decided to tell its stories in arc form so as to be able to better fit into trade paperback and thus be sold in bookstore chains has made it easier for them to attempt this approach but all it's doing is cheating the reader as well as insulting their intelligence.

When a writer thinks that these four issues are all that he or she will get then they will handle that story differently than if they are simply telling a four issue arc of an ongoing. The types of seeds they plant, the size and timing of the payoff and more is all determined by the scope of the project. So this means that the readers aren't being given the best presentation of that story. To add insult to injury, when they promote a book as being an ongoing and then tell us that it was a mini, it means that they think that we weren't paying attention or, worse, that we don't know the difference.

I've heard that they do this because Marvel fears promoting a new book as a mini-series since they tend to do worse. That these books are mini's with the potential to blossom into ongoings. Well, then I'd try to sell them as much. Readers (and writers) respond better when they are presented with all the facts up front; readers in particular love to know that their opinions matter.

While writing the Taki post, I started thinking about something. Taki was a mechanical genius before he gained his powers, then got the ability to manipulate technology. So I'm wondering about the process by which people's mutant abilities manifest.

I'm not talking about how a writer decides, say, "mutant pheromones would be a cool power" and then creates a character who either fits well with the power or is opposed to the power. I mean, within the parameters of the mutant premise - a genetic 'x-factor' (a gene, or, more likely, a cluster of them, probably the ones geneticists arrogantly call 'junk DNA') modifies the human in such a way as to give them abilities far beyond those of mere mortals--is there a rhyme or reason to the type of powers. Is there a relationship between their manifestation and the persona of the mutant?

This is kind of an obscure concern, I know. But as I keep creating my own characters over the years, it's something that I find kind of interesting. There are some powers - telepathy, healing factor, increased strength or speed - that would seem to follow from some basic evolutionary imperative. Others, such as controlling fire or the weather, would seem to find their inspiration in mythology. Others kind of defy belief even with the premise - you turn blue and furry, can teleport, and stick to walls. And you have a prehensile tail. I think you could argue that many of the mutants don't possess abilities that would strike you as resulting from the stresses of the human condition, they aren't Darwinian responses to food supply or dangers in the environment. Some of them are downright whimsical, or, in the case of a 'death touch' which one of the New X-Men: Academy X characters has, nature's way of curbing the population.

But why a particular manifestation to a particular person? Puberty hits, I end up shooting bolts of force out of my eyes, the guy next to me can control magnetism, the girl next to him can change shape? Why don't I get the shape changing power? Did my parents not get exposed to the right radiation (which Marvel have gotten away from talking about as a cause, with good reason)? Is there something within my personality that causes one manifestation over another? Or is it just chance? And if it is chance, then what does that say about our universe? If I was a biologist in the Marvel universe, not only would I jump at the chance to study any of them, particularly bodies that created shells of ice or fire without harming the person, but that would raise some profound and interesting questions about the nature of biological change, and what humans are. (side note: studying them would not mean dissecting them; this would not solely be the process of crazy Nazi vivisectionists.)

And why is it something confined to humans? We share 99.9% of our DNA with chimpanzees... is this happening in the Congo? Were they reading Dian Fossey's mind and decided it was best to just lay low? If this kind of incredible change is possible within one generation, what's changed in the universe? Is evolutionary theory even correct? Couldn't a proponent of Intelligent Design make good use of the mutant phenomenon? Of course, that would also raise the question of why Thor seems to show up a hell of a lot more than Jesus-Man... but that's an essay for another time.

This changes the basic view of the human being as composed of a set arrangement of chemicals. Or at least, chemicals that don't burn on contact with oxygen, or change in density. It makes one wonder what other leaps are possible, and if there are heretofore unseen patterns in how these aberrations show themselves. If there is a strong correlation between bestial humans who gain accelerated healing (Wolvie, Sabretooth), between the mechanically or linguistically inclined seeing geometric leaps in their ability (Forge, Taki, Cypher), loudmouth girls being able to draw more attention to them (Boom Boom, Jubilee), or sensitive, insecure women becoming able to read minds (Phoenix, Psylocke, Emma Frost), then that raises questions about how important consciousness becomes to our physical development. As do the opposite phenomena - the swashbuckling, intelligent beasts (Beast, Nightcrawler). As to repressed introverts causing destruction (Cyclops, Havok, Chamber), that's years of therapy right there.

Outside of the mutant universe, the other marquee Marvel heroes-- Spidey, the Hulk, Fantastic Four, Captain America, even to an extent Dr. Strange--seem to indicate that the human form is capable of these quantum leaps given a certain set of conditions. The capacity for personal transformation is far beyond what we thought - going back to the ancient empires, where men could become immortal heroes, gods who would control the forces of the Earth. Maybe it just seems like there would be a lot more schools of thought exploring this idea and its implications than we've seen.

Anyway. Just some things I haven't thought about for a minute. Thought I'd share the virus, see if it sparks anything in the rest of you.

When Joe Quesada took over as the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics one of his vows was "dead means dead." He pointed out how often people died and came back. Since then he's had a lot of explaining to do, especially for the X-Men who had been one of the main reasons for the rule's inception. We watched as Colossus, Phoenix and Psylocke returned.

Phoenix it was explained is the essence of rebirth and so can never die. Fair enough. I'll buy it. Combine that with the fact that Jean Grey had died and come back so many times and it's almost like she's getting in through a grandfather clause anyway. Colossus, we are told, came back because Joss Whedon had such a great story to tell and Quesada simply could not refuse to print it despite his public statements in the past. Okay, I dig Whedon and I won't deny him the right to tell his story. Psylocke, we're told, came back because Claremont lobbied hard for her and because Quesada thought her character hadn't been fully explored. Again, I won't complain because I happen to agree with Mr. Quesada (as well as Sequential Arts' own King Snake) that Psylocke is a character that hasn't been fully tapped yet.

That brings us to Hawkeye. Hawkeye's only been dead for only a few months (which is what in terms of Marvel time? A long weekend?) and already he's coming back. His death has no emotional resonance because it was overturned and the fact that it happened so quickly only goes to further undercut the significance. I'd say there's no way to validate this return... save perhaps one way:

Hawkeye is seen as a modern day Jesus.

Not that he is Jesus but that he'd be perceived as being like Jesus. Here's a guy who died and a week later has been resurrected. Here's a guy who's a hundred percent superhero and a hundred percent man. How is the Marvel Universe going to look at this guy? Surely if you're a plumber in Brooklyn, a part of you is going to think, "so that's why he's been hanging out with these superheroes, he is more powerful than all of them. He can't die. I knew he just wasn't some guy with a bow." Even in a world of the spectacular wouldn't someone coming back from the dead make some people (maybe not a large group but a sizeable one) think that person has some kind of divine power? Combine that with the fact that he's on the same team as a Norse god and surely someone's thinking it.

How do you feel if you're a villain? Suddenly you're about to take on the Avengers. Here comes Iron Man and Hawkeye, wouldn't you try to take on Iron Man? He's just a guy in a suit but Hawkeye is a guy who can't die. And you know that Dr. Doom would be tracking him down, trying to figure out the secret to eternal life.

Even though I'm a big supporter of "dead means dead" I have to say that if Marvel explored that concept, I'd have no problem whatsoever with Hawkeye's return.

Is it right to pre-emptively strike a foe who may or may not become a threat to you? It's a question of reactive force versus proactive force and that issue has been dealt with in comics for a while now. Is it right to act "before it's too late" even if there is only a chance that any phyiscal danger will actually coming to bear? If so, when do you draw the line? One might suggest if the other person is planning on developing weapons to attack while another person might say that simply harboring people who plan on attacking us is enough.

In Justice League: New World Order, the team struggles with the Hyperclan, a proactive team who looks to solve the world's problems with a series of quickfixes. These solutions solve the problems but with little thought to the ramifications. For instance, the Hyperclan can turn the Sahara into a garden paradise but the problem remains that the climate simply cannot survive there. As with this action, all the solutions are proved in the end to be so short sighted that they have no permanence.

Stormwatch deals with the same issue, particularly with the introduction of the High, who wants to bring peace to the world. However, his view of the world is far too naive for him to be successful. The trend continues and expands when the series switched over to the Authority, since the very protagonists of that book are proactive heroes. There is even a scene in the Authority where they overthrow an abusive Asian dictator (certainly this reminds you of our own situation in the Middle East). Indeed, the situation is strikingly similar, here is a despot who abuses his own people so a group disposes of him and offers sanctuary to his citizens. Yet the citizens are no better off with their conquering heroes than they were with the dictator because despite best intentions. Once you interfere with something all you do is create more chaos, at least initially and the less forethought put into a matter, the worse that chaos will be. In the case of the rescued peasants, they end up dying and being dumped in the interdimensional barrier known as the Bleed.

Proactive, or pre-emptive strikes end up being merely a stop-gap solution as our involvement in Iraq shows. When you fix a situation with force, all you end up doing is replacing one problem with another and the more effort you put into the more the situation requires of you. As Oliver Cromwell said, "a man who owns everything by force, owns nothing at all." Or for a more comic related quote, although a more chilling one, turn to Magog in Kingdom Come: "They chose me. They chose the ma who would kill over the man who wouldn't... and now they're dead."

We all know that Gambit is from Louisiana. How do we know? Because he says things like "dis t'ing be out o' control, chere." Or at least that's what he says when he's being poorly written. I don't mean poorly written in the sense of poor character motivation or flimsy dialogue, I mean the basic forming of words is poor.

There is never any reason to write in dialect. Ever. Of course the X-Men are the worst offender so it's easy to pick on them. Whether its Gambit, Rogue, Cannonball or someone else the writers often feel the need to make us "hear the character's voice" in our heads by writing the dialogue phoenitically. Here's a better idea, just write good dialogue and we'll hear them just fine. After all, the writer's don't feel the need to write Xavier with a nasal upstate New Yorker accent so why make Cannonball say things like, "Ah'll be!"

The only dialogue sin worse than writing in dialect is the over dependence on stereotypical speech. For example, we know that Colossus is Russian because he shouts out "boize moi!" And we've all read Nightcrawler call women "frauline" and say "danke" despite the fact that he's lived in the United States for years, has no German friends, doesn't visit Germany nor have any real occasion to speak German. If you're bilingual and live in a country that doesn't speak one of your languages, you're not going to rush to use one of those words [an exception to this rule is if you don't know the English word for something you might insert another that you don't know].

So to recap, a bad way to write Banshee would be "top o' th' marnin' to ya, Beast. Yer lookin' like a right fookin' mess, ye are boyo." A better way to write him would be to say "I haven't thought about that since university." We know that he's Irish, we don't need to be hit over the head with it, if you want to remind us use subtle clues (for example, the UK's use of the word university or hospital without any modifier such as "my" or "the").

When superhero comics came out in the late 30's, the serial was in full bloom. The serial, for those that don't know (and haven't heard George Lucas drone on and on about them) was a series of short films that played in movie houses that ended in a tense cliffhanger, so that you'd have to come back to the theater for the next installment to see how it turned out. As this format was so popular, the comic creators emulated it.

Fast forward seven decades and what do you have? Clutter. Lots of clutter. Unlike Flash Gordon of the silver screen or even Sherlock Holmes of the page, Superman's been going since 1938. The innate problem is that most serial books are written by one writer meaning that they don't go on for more than a few decades and the output tends to be much less and serial films are heavily dependant on the actors who age and can no longer play the part after perhaps a decade. Since comics can be written by several people (and can have several books coming out a month) and don't age, the amount of narrative baggage can add up quite quickly.

The solution? Marvel has gone so far as to "Ultimatize" its own line of comics, coming out with an alternative universe where they are planning on taking continuity more seriously and try not to flood the market. It's a good effort and I've enjoyed what they've produced so far. However, I think there are other options.

What a comic company could do is come out with a monthly anthology book, in the vein of Dark Horse Presents. Basically, you come out with a 48 page comic that contains four stories inside of it. This could give people a monthly fix, give artists and writers a chance to showcase their talents, and could explore characters without having to commit too much to them. Meanwhile, instead of having other titles, the company could come out with several mini-series; Sin City is a great example. This way you're not watering down the storylines with horrid ideas that sometimes writers have to churn out to fill out a monthly grind.

Comics can benefit from borrowing more from film and books rather than television (which again, seven years is a long run for a TV show but comics can run 35+ years). If comics are gonna stay fresh, they're going to have to examine how they present themselves.