Discussion - Comics after X-Men

[Blue Saint]

While looking forward to what is coming in the world of comic is a big part of San Diego, it is also a time to reflect back on where comics have been best exemplified by Eisners Awards. It is in this same spirit that I want to take a look back and examine a certain event that had a monumental effect on the whole of comics, that while acknowledged as a major event still not viewed as shift in both the industry and community. I am referring to the X-Men motion picture which was released just over ten years ago. The major change brought upon X-Men was that comics more or less stopped being about publishing stories and moved towards becoming intellectual property farms. How this has effected comics is staggering so much that there was no time to react to the change causing us just to accept this new paradigm.

First I would address the nature of creator-owned titles because it is easiest to see the effects here. Basically almost no creator-owned title outside the edges of the indie book scene are created now without some expectation of a multimedia being possible. I admit this may be hyperbole but you would hard pressed to find a significant number of titles that prove otherwise. At the base of this is that story is no longer the chief concern, which contrasts with past where people ventured out to do this these books because they had a story they wanted to tell but couldn't through any of the major publishers. Now we have screen-writers churning out revamped failed pitches in comic form so they take advantage of this new dynamic. Entire imprints and publishers overtly claiming their sole intent for their books are to turn them into multimedia projects. Actors lending their name and likeness to comics which are little more than thinly disguised pitches. But at least here there are still new ideas and concepts being presented.

Perhaps one of the more subtle changes that came about is the dearth of new characters and concepts in the major publishers. The editorial heads try to pass it off as simply the fans not wanting new characters, which is just short of an outright lie. While it is true fans are not inclined to all new characters, if they are well written and foster a sense of connection they can succeed just look at Marvel's Runaways. The issue here, harking back to my first point, most creators don't want to give away a possible character that could makes them a sizable amount of money if optioned. This also leads into quagmire that is the royalties and creator rights conflicts. Still when we get a character through we are usually treated with something wonderful that sadly contrasts with it's surroundings.

In the wake of the X-Men motion two words have become more or less the motto of modern comics, "iconic" and "cinematic". I will address "iconic" first. This attitude basically fosters the idea that at a certain point a character will come to it's apex in terms of image and story, and anything after this point is more or less "damaging" to the character. For example Spider-Man is "iconic" when he is single meaning him being married is actively harming the his basic concept. The best why to put is borrow from an oft-quoted statement by Stan Lee after he learned Marvel surpassed DC in sales, "we no longer need to present change just the illusion of change." We can no longer have certain characters move beyond certain fixed points, and when they do they need to be reset. There is way around this though, you may not be able to change the character their environment is another matter. This points leads into the notion of "cinematic" comics. It use to be, after Marvel revolutionized the landscape of comics, stories were character driven. While the plots usually were gripping and dynamic what carried you through issue to issue was the development of cast of characters. Now with the notion of "iconic" characters a problem arose, it is impossible to change the characters to much less risk "ruining" them added to that a lack of new characters something needed to be done. The answer was to be honest quite sublime.

Since comics had become fodder for the cinema why not just tailor to mimic their new targets. Thus we had a move away from the traditional cartooning influence towards a more "cinematic". Thought balloons were phased out since movie characters don't speak to themselves. The tight depictions of exaggerated actions to give the impression of movement from panel to panel replaced with sweeping views filled static figures mimicking a still from a film. Those coupled with a slowed progression of the narrative to let the characters and the tension settle between the dramatic scenes, decompress if you will. With these base changes to structure of comics an answer was found to offset the issue of "iconic" characters, the event book. Basically the comic version of summer blockbuster, which was now seen as the height of what a comic could become.

Now while my views on these changes are negative to a certain extent, it doesn't mean they are necessarily bad for the comics. I did this to bring attention to this important event in comic's history and now that we are ten years out we can start to examine it and it's outcomes. From this discussion I hope that we can identify and address the genuine issues. So that comics can continue for a long time to come and after a future San Diego Comic Con we can look back and reflect on that. Thank you for your time.

 

[MrMonk]

In the wake of the X-Men motion two words have become more or less the motto of modern comics, "iconic" and "cinematic". I will address "iconic" first. This attitude basically fosters the idea that at a certain point a character will come to it's apex in terms of image and story, and anything after this point is more or less "damaging" to the character. For example Spider-Man is "iconic" when he is single meaning him being married is actively harming the his basic concept. The best why to put is borrow from an oft-quoted statement by Stan Lee after he learned Marvel surpassed DC in sales, "we no longer need to present change just the illusion of change." We can no longer have certain characters move beyond certain fixed points, and when they do they need to be reset. There is way around this though, you may not be able to change the character their environment is another matter. This points leads into the notion of "cinematic" comics. It use to be, after Marvel revolutionized the landscape of comics, stories were character driven. While the plots usually were gripping and dynamic what carried you through issue to issue was the development of cast of characters. Now with the notion of "iconic" characters a problem arose, it is impossible to change the characters to much less risk "ruining" them added to that a lack of new characters something needed to be done. The answer was to be honest quite sublime.

You speak to the marriage, but this is a double edged sword. Moving forward would also see a fan backlash. Marvel and DC have created a fanbase that hates change. I enjoy the link between multimedia and comics, because multimedia is not afraid to take chances for whatever reason, and if successful, have it filter back into the comic.

Look to the Young Justice thread. Some are up in arms just because Dick Grayson and Conner Kent are on the same team. I can't bring myself to care about it that much as it stands alone.

Since comics had become fodder for the cinema why not just tailor to mimic their new targets. Thus we had a move away from the traditional cartooning influence towards a more "cinematic". Thought balloons were phased out since movie characters don't speak to themselves.

They just moved thought bubbles over to caption boxes. The storytelling itself is a bit different, but the thought process remains mostly the same.

The tight depictions of exaggerated actions to give the impression of movement from panel to panel replaced with sweeping views filled static figures mimicking a still from a film.

Depends on the artist. McDaniel, Quitely, Ferry, and others still use the previous method. The rise of Hitch and Land was more fan-driven than movie driven in my mind.

Those coupled with a slowed progression of the narrative to let the characters and the tension settle between the dramatic scenes, decompress if you will.

Writing for the trade.

With these base changes to structure of comics an answer was found to offset the issue of "iconic" characters, the event book. Basically the comic version of summer blockbuster, which was now seen as the height of what a comic could become.

I agree with this.

I believe the movies did affect the comics, and the first part of your essay was spot-on, but I think later you attributed more to the movies than was necessary.

 

[Blue Saint]

I am of an opinion, which is quite possibly erroneous, that a majority of the fans' taste is directed by what company is saying is the current direction. Look at the X-Men fans were all with this new direction, cheering for the future stories that could be told and for finally getting rid of the stupid costumes. Then when Whedon came aboard most of the previous sentiment was replaced, so much that when Decimation struck many were now cheering for the new stories that could come for this direction. I know it sounds insulting to say that your preferences are being directed from on high, it isn't meant to be it is just that we can be influenced by more factors than we realize. I mean look at events books in general. We are told that they are vital to the overall narrative of the comic universe and sales reflect that, now if they truly are is another discussion for a later time.

The notion that the fans don't want change is more the higher-ups doing than anything else though, I mean look at DC where we have Johns and Morrison. Johns is of the mind-set that everything should be reset to the Silver Age, so much that he was willing to undo one of the most heroic and memorable deaths in comics just so he could get back Barry Allen. Then we have Morrison who has not only killed off and replaced, at least temporarily, Batman forcing a massive reshuffle of the entire Batman line actively tries to integrate new concepts and characters within the universe as a whole. Despite both being top talents it is honestly only the Johns perspective that gets pushed by DC editorial since that is notion they want to imprint of the readership. And to address issues such as "One More Day" or the current Wonder Woman revamp, while yes fans are influenced by the companies they aren't total sheep and can tell an absolutely horrible idea when it gets hoisted upon them. When the companies want to influence the fans they get their best talent on it, so when the fans' opinions are changed it doesn't feel as though they have been manipulated.

Also there is a difference between thought balloons and caption boxes. Thought balloons are generally more along the lines of inner monologue and caption boxes are more along the lines of general narration. It may just be that I don't watch many movies, last time I went to the theater was early 2009, I don't see many inner monologues that don't also double as the narration let alone several characters having inner monologues in the same movie.