Posted: 12 December 2017 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
I just watched the final episode of Kirkman's "Secret History of Comics" (no, this is not a thread about the show) which focused on the origin of Image Comics, and a couple of new things struck me.
Now, I think it's been said before (by people here and elsewhere) that "Image ruined comics!" but I always thought that referred to the exaggerated art (bubble boobs, muscles, and pouches) and also that the books were always late (and the founders didn't seem to care). But the new things that struck me were:
1. INDUSTRY SALES--Marvel Comics (and comics in general) were really on a roll when the Image founders jumped ship. Their X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN sold millions! Sure, it was the speculator boom that was going, but, still, the company was healthy and who's to say that the speculator boom wouldn't have morphed into something more solid if the founders jumping hadn't helped end it early? Instead, Marvel's stock dropped and the company was weakened...and a weak Marvel is bad for the industry. (Not to mention, Marvel tried to copy Image's style in the 90's, and way too many of their books were overblown garbage--further diminishing the company.) Instead of finding new ways to grow, now Marvel was scrambling to recover and survive.
2. SCHLOCK--Did the big sales simply shift from Marvel to Image? For a while, but Image's unprofessionalism soon squandered that good will. These six artists came out with their six books and they sold BIG! Whether you like their styles or not--these were the hot books and the hot styles at the time. But then these guys immediately hired carbon copy artists and churned out thirty other books--by non-star/inferior artists. They immediately abandoned whatever standards they might have had going in. But what if they hadn't? What if, instead, they invited in Neal Adams, John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Frank Miller, Jim Starlin, Howard Chaykin, etc.--all to do one book each? (Maybe they did and everybody said no.) But, for young guys who thought the big companies were doing it wrong and they were going to show them how to do it right--they ended up being just like the big companies themselves (and not in the best ways).
3. PRICES--On the show, they bragged about bringing in Photoshop coloring and slick paper "and now everybody does it"--but that also raised the prices...and lowered the subtlety. (Can you imagine Jim Aparo working on glossy Image paper?) Maybe kids liked the bright colors and slick paper, but only adults could afford those prices. (And they were also proud that now super-heroes could be seen in bed with girls.) Is Image responsible for the mass exodus of kids from buying comics?
To be honest, I was one of those guys who loved Image at the beginning. I was in my early 20's and I had drifted away from Marvel and DC. I still bought some independents and that put me in the comics shops to see the posters for the coming of Image. People were excited and I was really excited! A new company, by the best (well, hottest) in the biz, on books they always wanted to do! A third company with a new world and a new mythology to explore! Was this what it was like in the early days of Marvel? I bought all the founders' books (except I couldn't get into SPAWN past the first issue) and it was great! Then came the second tier (talent and characters), and the third tier--and it immediately became all watered down.
And now Image has sort of a second life as a place for creator-owned series that are unconnected, books that rise or fall individually--another Dark Horse Comics. And it, like the whole industry, is just sort of limping along at a time when super-heroes and their interconnected mythologies are the biggest things...in other media.
But what could have been.
Edited by Eric Jansen on 12 December 2017 at 1:06pm
|