Redartz: Greetings, folks! Here we go again; a team-up twofer with your questions and mine. As always, your question comes from the fortunate first commenter with a topic suggestion. Mine comes from the past week's doings.
Specifically, reprints. As noted previously on this blog, I've been gradually reducing the size of my comic collection. Generally I sell a book after I have it in another form from which to read it; for example an Omnibus or a tpb collection. Well, this week DC came out with another of their "facsimile" editions, specifically Batman 181 (first appearance of Poison Ivy). These facsimile editions are rather cool: truly identical to the original comic, even including all the original ads; and printed on something close to newsprint. Only difference is the price (4.99 as opposed to 12 cents), and the appearance of a UPC on the front cover. So, I picked up a copy to have the story, with the intention of selling my original. Incidentally, I compared the original with the reprint page by page; and they got it right.
Hence, my question: what are your favorite reprint formats? Nowadays the options are plentiful. So what formats most appeal to you? Ponder upon this, as you devise your topic for our weekly chat...
15 comments:
B/c I still check in at my LCB monthly or so...
1) If the old story is compelling in itself, I am good with the $1 "True Believer" format which is just the story, no ads, no checklist, no letters.
2) However, I would pay $2 - $3 for a "facsimile" product which includes the ads, letters pages, cheklist... i.e., 100% reprinted.
3) I just won't pay $5 for a "facsimile" b/c me thinks it is too much. I would've bought the Batman 181 for $1 True-Believer style Red mentions above, but refused the $5 "facsimile." I told LCB man "I'll just dig it out of my long box for $5." He laughed.
As usual, DC marches to a different drummer. They finally started to do $1 True-Believer style (2 years after Marvel) and reprinted a Bat Girl origin book from about 10 years ago. That stuff is in no way comic-book "cannon" to me and I would maybe only pay $.10 to read the story. I told LCB man I was expecting stuff maybe from the 50s, 60s, 70s... not 2009.
I do think there may be a market for entire runs "Facsimilie" style of ASM, FF, etc. at $2 - $3 each.
Great subject Red.
And I would juxtapose Batman 181 on the Daredevil 160 conversation from Steve Does Comics from Sunday as a question?
Batman 181 - Harmless fun, the introduction of Poison Ivy, suitable for all ages?
Daredevil 160 from 1979 - Bullseye has hung Black Widow to death with a hair dryer cord on the cover. Not harmless fun for all ages? (It still bothers me, 40 years later.)
The question would be: did comic books become too violent for kids or kids' parents such that it led to folks disengaging from comic books?
One format that I enjoyed reading as a stand-alone event was the full-color Ominubus-like softcover collections of "The Death of Superman" and then the HUGE "Return of Superman" volume (if that's the right title?). If your in it for the story and faithful adherence to the colorful visuals, that's the way to go, yup. It's the most I've ever enjoyed Superman. THE PHOENIX SAGA probably falls under this umbrella as well.
And to answer your second question, CH-- Heck YES they did--! While I am no fan at all of most of the faux-puritanical inanities of the old CCA, it DID have the effect of taking away the lowest-common-denominator audience-grab of in-your-face graphic violence-- and force the story-tellers to make those points with much more art and finesse. "Shock Value" is the most appallingly lazy and self-justifying creative route that one can ever find. It's an easy phrase to throw out as an explanation for OBVIOUS creative self-indulgence. Ugh. When practically every issue of every title falls into an unending cycle of trying to out-Shock the previous Shock's "Value", well, we've fallen into the absurd world of creative oxymoronism. . .
And--- gotta get back to work. . .
HB
Yeah, I like the Omnibus editions (or Marvel Essentials, or DC Showcase Presents, or even the old DC digests) better than single issue reprints. It's just easier to keep everything in one place and makes shelving them a lot more convenient.
For reprints, the more that can be stuffed into a single volume, the better - although I'll readily acknowledge that some of those omnibuses are pretty hefty. I think the perfect format is the current Epic collections that Marvel is printing - same size as the comics, and unlike their Essential predecessors, in full glorious color.
I'm also partial to digests, and the digests collecting various Marvel books published by Panini UK have been a real boon to me. Unfortunately, that line has apparently been discontinued.
Well Charlie, while its true that DD cover probably wouldn't have made it past the comics code even a few years earlier (probably editorial would have anticipated difficulties and insisted on changes at the layout stage) I think you're over reacting.
A particular image should be considered in context - the cover is part of a comic book, which in turn is part of a series - and Miller's Daredevil run is a consideration of violence and its consequences, arguably more "responsible" than any number of superhero comics that might well be less graphically shocking but nevertheless inane.
As a kid I read the British comic Action, which was closed down under pressure in the 70s because of content that made Miller's work look like a model of restraint. But did it do me any harm? Here I am, a well-adjusted adult...
Ok, thats the clear cut argument without any tricky difficulties out of the way, and on to reprints. Got the Fourth World Omnibus earlier this year.
A thousand pages of visionary Kirbymania in a single, monstrous hardback - thats the way to do it!
-sean
Charlie- a bit of a correction; that Batman facsimile edition was actually only 3.99. Still pricey for a comic, I know (oh, for the days of a 99 cent comic again). Nevertheless, I counted it as a good investment, freeing me up to sell the original. That's how I picked up my Spiderman and Fantastic Four Omnibi; selling a couple vintage originals and getting the whole run in a big volume with some funds leftover for paying those infernal bills...
Regarding age appropriate comics: as I commented over at our pal Steve's blog, I leave it up to the individual parent/child combination. A reasonable, responsible parent will know what comics (or tv, or video games) are right for their kid. That said, HB makes a good argument for the negative effects of 'shock value'. I quite agree; the code, while it had some ludicrous elements, did set some creative parameters which probably helped push the Engleharts, Starlins and Shooters to greater storytelling.
Ohhhhhh Sean-- I am plumb COMPELLED to push back on citing the old "Well, it never hurt ME-" line of defense, 'cause it's just not legitimate. It represent a statistical sample of exactly. . . one person, right? Its classic use for years was by smokers defending their habit, saying "I've smoked 3 packs a day for 86 years, and I haven't died of cancer yet--! "
(Heck, the number of times I heard this from my Dad, even. . . ) Nah-- there's got to be a discriminating line drawn between when the use of graphically (or even disturbingly) violent imagery is expanding/enhancing a medium, and when it's simply coarsening it. . .
HB
Hi Folks!
Perhaps I am delusional but I have to imagine that the "break even" point for reprinting a comic is less than $.99, given Marvel has released dozens of "True Believer" reprints at $.99 each?
Why not start reprinting ASM, FF, etc., minus the ads and letters and MMC, starting with issue #1 for a measly $1? Hell, I know I'd buy them. They'd make great gifts for kids like at Halloween, stocking stuffers, etc. and introduce them to the hobby.
And the nice thing is that when the wife says, "Time to clean house" you don't feel bad dropping off a stack at the Goodwill!
The mention of reprints here has me thinking fondly of actual monthly reprint series like Marvel Tales, featuring old Spider-Man stories, or Fantasy Masterpieces, where I discovered Starlin's wonderful Adam Warlock stories. I didn't grasp that I was reading old stories as a kid, I just loved them along with the contemporary stuff. Of course, the old Stan Lee compilations like Bring on the Bad Guys, or the small pocket reprints, were books where you knew you were revisiting classic stuff, and that was a fun way to go.
Nowadays, I've taken to buying signed hardcovers from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a nice way to support a good cause and get a ton of my fondest Frank Miller Daredevil stories all packed into one or two volumes.
Speaking of which, it's an interesting question about violence and kids' readership. I was about eight years old when I got into Miller Daredevil, and yes, looking back, that was a lot of bloodshed I was exposed to, and some heavy themes (I'm thinking particularly of the "Angel Dust" issues). At the same time, my dad was sending me to the corner drugstore to buy cigars for him, which the clerk sold me, no problem. So I guess that was a different world back then...
Which it really was, on the comic racks. When you think of it, Marvel had no indicators distinguishing the style and tone of the books all coming out at the same time. In one trip to the store an impressionable reader could come home with a stack that contained a Chris Claremont mutant mind-rape, the Thing clobbering Sandman, Elektra impaling enemies with black bloodstains everywhere, and the Avengers repelling a ludicrous attack from Fabian Stancowicz (sp?) in a goofy robot suit. All under the same Marvel Comics banner, all filed in my brain under "superheroes".
In a way the more consistently dark, grim comics starting in the late 80s arrived hand-in-hand with more accurate labelling and categorization, so Justice League International would actually look noticeably different from a "Mature Readers" issue of Andy Helfer's "Shadow", reflecting vastly different tones.
But even the labelling sometimes isn't enough to prepare some for the shocking contents of the comics. I read in Sean Howe's "Marvel the Untold Story" how movie stars like Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney were turning down comic projects in the 2000s based on the graphic content they discovered (in Clooney's case, he passed on Nick Fury after seeing the MAX mini-series by Garth Ennis, not exactly the standard Fury depiction that long-term fans were used to...)
Anyway, I suspect the biggest barrier keeping casual, young readers away nowadays is the insane price tag on thin, decompressed stories. Which is why I don't care much that my kids aren't into comics. Except "Bone" of course. We all had fun reading "Bone". Then they jumped from there to novels for young readers, which is fine by me.
-david p.
That "well it never hurt me" was a little tongue in cheek HB, my main point being the stuff about context.
But all the same it does happen to be true, and while I accept that as a sample statistic its entirely anecdotal I notice theres not much in the way of evidence being offered of the harm that can be done by comic book imagery...
-sean
Ha-- it was, like, "Oh boy, Sean's talking like my Dad. Next he's going to launch into an explanation about how Mitch Miller was FAR superior to the Beatles. . . and how he and Abe Lincoln had to hike 30 miles through wilderness blizzards every day to go to school. . . and thanked god for it!"
HB
I must agree with Sean - it's difficult to imagine anybody being traumatised by a comic!
In my house there was one golden rule - I and my sister had to be in bed by 9pm except on weekends and holidays. But my father let me watch or read anything I wanted.
Is anybody else thrilled by the discovery of a planet with water and clouds in the atmosphere? Surely it can't be too long before a genuine Earth-like world is discovered!
Red, did you hear about the fossil worm which pre-dates the Cambrian Explosion?
Colin- no, I haven't heard about the worm. But I've been fascinated by the detailed revelations about the Chicxulub impact! Almost like live news coverage of the end if the Cretaceous...
Red, I should have said "proto-worm" and it might have had legs! But it existed millions of years before the creatures of the Burgess Shale so the origins of multi-cellular life have been pushed back further in time (you've probably googled it by now so you already know :D)
Post a Comment