Marvel Comics

20 years of Spawn

January 30, 2012 Leave a Comment

20 years of Spawn
Bleeding Cool has the cover of Spawn #216. It features artwork by Todd McFarlane, the creator of Spawn. It’s been a while since McFarlane has penciled artwork for Spawn. This cover is a recycled image from a cover not used back in the 90′s.

I got back into comics in 1990 because of Todd McFarlane. I was in the Air Force and stationed in upstate New York. There was a comic shop in the mall in Utica and there were posters in the window of upcoming comics. One of the posters was for Spider-Man #1, the book created specificity for McFarlane so he wouldn’t leave Marvel Comics.

The artwork blew me away.

I ended up going into that comic book shop and I bought a comic book. I returned the following week and bought a few more. The next week, I returned and bought some more comics, as well as a short box and some bags and boards.

I was hooked.

McFarlane left Marvel Comics in late 1991 and went on to co-found Image Comics with some other popular artists. Spawn #1 was published in 1992.

I’ve recently become nostalgic for Spawn. A couple of weeks ago, I purchased Spawn: Origins Book 1 on Amazon. It collects the first 12 issues of Spawn and it’s awesome.

I wish Todd McFarlane still drew comics.

The ‘X-Statix Omnibus’ looks great

November 30, 2011 Leave a Comment

I stumbled upon this gem while perusing Amazon. It’s the X-Statix Omnibus. It collects X-Force #116-129, Brotherhood #9, X-Statix #1-26, Wolverine/Doop #1-2, X-Statix Presents Dead Girl #1-5, and material from X-Men Unlimited #41, I ♥ Marvel: My Mutant Heart and Nation X #4.

It has 1,200 pages and weighs nearly eight pounds. Like the other Marvel Omnibus collections, it comes in the same page size as the regular Marvel comic floppy. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the over-sized Absolute Editions DC Comics puts out. I like collected comics in the original size format.

I already have the complete run of X-Statix, written by Peter Milligan and drawn by Mike Allred, in the monthly floppy format, but I would much rather have this collected edition.

This book as a release date of December 21 and retails for $125, but like most things, it can be had at Amazon for a lot less.

New Ultimate Spider-Man is a half-black, half-Hispanic teenager

August 4, 2011 Leave a Comment

Marvel Comics killed off Peter Parker in Ultimate Spider-Man and is replacing him with a kid named Miles Morales, a half-black, half-Hispanic teenager.

It’s important to point out that this isn’t the regular Spider-Man. It’s the Ultimate Spider-Man. There are two different universes in Marvel Comics. The Ultimate universe was created back in 2000 to help attract new readers. It features the same characters in the regular Marvel universe, but with different origin stories. The characters in the Ultimate universe are also often younger than their regular universe counterparts.

Predictably, this move is freaking some people out. Glenn Beck spoke about it on his radio show and blamed Michelle Obama for the change. In Beck’s defense, he’s an idiot who knows nothing about the subjects he speaks about, including comic books. The First Lady is black and the new Ultimate Spider-Man is of mixed race. Of course Beck thinks these two facts are somehow connected.

I’m fairly certain Marvel Comics pulled this stunt for the publicity, not because they thought it would allow them to craft better stories. It doesn’t really matter what race or ethnic background the new Ultimate Spider-Man is considering the fact that he wears a mask. Plus, this is happening in the Ultimate universe, not the regular universe. What happens in the Ultimate universe, stays in the Ultimate universe.

If anyone has a problem with this, they are just being silly.

Teabaggers up in arms over their portrayal in a comic book

February 11, 2010 1 Comment

Captain America #602 shows a group of ~~mostly~~ white people protesting the U.S. government and one of the protesters is shown holding a sign that reads, “Tea Bag the Libs before they tea bag YOU!“ The sign in question was lifted from a real life Teabagger protest sign at a real life Teabagger protest. Teabaggers are upset because they believe that Marvel Comics is portraying them as a bunch of anti-tax, anti-government racist wackos.

As if Teabaggers aren’t doing enough on their own to give people that impression.

Marvel Comics is reacting to the outrage by Teabaggers and like minded anti-tax, anti-government Republicans by claiming that it was a mistake to include the sign and the sign’s language would be removed from future printings.

The Robert Kirkman/Brian Michael Bendis debate

September 30, 2008 1 Comment

I almost went to the recent Baltimore Comic Convention for no other reason then to witness the debate between Robert Kirkman (left) and Brian Michael Bendis (right). For those that don’t know, both men are comic book writers. Kirkman writes independent books The Walking Dead and Invincible, while Bendis writes just about every book currently published by Marvel Comics.

I am exaggerating, but not by much.

Kirkman recently came under fire from comic book nerds for things he said on a video manifesto released on the Internet. He encouraged other comic book creators to stop creating books for Marvel and DC and to instead concentrate their comic book creating powers on their own works. He himself was working for Marvel up until a short time ago, but decided to concentrate on his own books.

Brian Michael Bendis evidently took exception to some of the things said by Kirkman not only on the before mentioned video, but on a podcast talking about the same issues. Kirkman had used Bendis as an example with many of the points he was trying to make. Specifically, that comic book writers shouldn’t expect to fallow in Bendis’ footsteps in that there is only one Brian Michael Bendis.

Brian Michael Bendis then appeared on the same podcast that Kirkman appeared on and disputed many of the claims that were made by Robert Kirkman.

Organizers of the Baltimore Comic Con decided to capitalize on the “feud” by having the two men debate their respective point’s of view. I was thinking of going to the con to watch the debate until I realized I didn’t really care. At least not enough to drive down to the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore, pay $30 to park, pay another $15 to get into the con, and then sit next to someone that probably hasn’t showered in two days while the two comic book writers debated.

I’ve heard what both Kirkman and Bendis have to say and I mostly agree with Kirkman. I think it’s silly for someone who wants to write comic books for a living to simply aspire to write stories about the same old characters that have been around for eons.

It would be like someone wanting to write sci-fi novels and only aspiring to write Star Trek novels. Ironically, that is exactly what one certain comic book writer has done. He has written quite a few Star Trek novels.

I’ve really cut down on my comic book reading lately. I just haven’t felt like I’m getting my money’s worth. At $3 or $4 each, most comic books just aren’t worth it. Then again, if it took more then six minutes to read a comic, I might feel differently. I can spent $8 on a paperback novel and get hours and hours of enjoyable reading out of it. I can spend $30 at the funny book shop and maybe get an hour out of it. It just doesn’t make much economic sense these days to read comics.

Comics are cheaper to produce now then ever?

August 18, 2008 3 Comments

I read an article over on Newsarama where they ask various comic book creators to weigh in on comments made by comic book writer Robert Kirkman. The creator of Battle Pope, The Walking Dead, and Invincible advised his fellow creators to concentrate their efforts not on working for Marvel or DC, but on their own independent stuff. He said that not only would it be better for the individual creator, but it would save the comic book industry.

My favorite was the comment made by comic book writer Chuck Dixon. He said:

I don’t worry about the “future of the industry.” There will always be comics. They’re cheaper to produce now than they’ve ever been and relatively easy to make compared to other media.

Back in the day, my brother and I would ride our bikes down the street to Hardy’s Liquor and buy a comic book. They were around 20 cents. Now, they are at least three bucks each. If Chuck Dixon is correct and comic books are cheaper to make now then they’ve ever been, why do they cost so much?

Just say no to comic book sketches

June 12, 2008 1 Comment

From this week’s Internet comic book gossip column Rich Johnson’s Lying in the Gutters:

I’m getting more reports of people who’ve commissioned pieces from Michael Golden complaining about the length of time the pieces take, the lack of communication, and the practice of taking on more commissions when there are years worth uncompleted.I don’t think anyone commissioning such a piece right now can be under any illusion of the amount of time Mike takes.

While most creators take less time to fulfil a commission, some take more – Brian Bolland and Simon Bisley are two examples.

As for communication, there’s very little more to say than, “It’ll be ready when it’s ready.”

I blogged last year about someone paying Michael Golden for a commissioned piece of artwork, only to get the runaround for months and months from both Michael Golden and his art agent, Renee Witterstaetter. When the fan finally got his artwork, it contained an insult from Golden. He included the phrase “Patience is a viru [sic]” in the piece.

Both classy and professional.

I understand some artists take longer to do their artwork. What I don’t understand is how someone can take someone’s money for a commissioned piece of art and then not get around to doing it. What’s even worse is when they take time to then attend comic book conventions where they take on even more commissions for artwork. I think that if you already have a backlog of commissions, you shouldn’t be going out and taking more commissions. You should concentrate on fulfilling the commissions you already have.

Personally, I would never pay a comic book artist for commissioned artwork. If I had $500 to blow on something comic book related, I would buy comic books. I’d pick up some more D.C. Comics Absolute Editions or maybe more Marvel Omnibus Editions or Marvel Masterworks.

If I wanted artwork that was comic book related, I would buy something licensed and authorized.

I wouldn’t buy a sketch. Ever. Not only are they usually way overpriced, technically they aren’t even legal. Unless the artist in question owns the rights to the character being sketched, they are unauthorized to use the characters for commercial gain. Just because comic book publishers choose to turn a blind eye to the practice of artists charging fans hundreds of dollars to create art depicting their intellectual property doesn’t mean they always will. Eventually publishers will realize that when a fan pays hundreds of bucks for a sketch of Wolverine smoking a cigar, that fan could be spending that money on licensed merchandise.

The undeniable popularity of Manga is hard to ignore

April 3, 2008 2 Comments

A list of the top 20 selling graphic novels sold by book retailers in the United States shows something that is beyond dispute – manga is popular and superhero comics are not. It’s not even close.

If I worked over at Marvel or DC, I would be worried. In fact, I would be very worried. Out of the top 20 graphic novels sold in books stores, only two (2) come from Marvel and DC.

The one lone book from Marvel is an adaption from a Laurell K. Hamilton Anita Blake Vampire Hunter novel. The characters don’t belong to Marvel. Both the author and the series has an existing fan base that automatically resulted in sales with readers that may have never read a graphic novel before.

The lone DC book was the acclaimed Alan Moore’s Watchmen. It was first published in 1986 and is considered by almost everyone to be the greatest graphic novel ever written.

Eighteen of the top 20 graphic novels sold in book stores did not come from either Marvel or DC. How can both companies just continue to ignore that? If I was in charge of either Marvel or DC, I would mimic the manga model. I find it remarkable that they don’t.

Wonder Woman on the cover of ‘Playboy’

January 12, 2008 6 Comments

What’s sure to enrage female comic book fans, Tiffany Fallon is on the cover of Playboy magazine sans clothing with her body painted to look like Wonder Woman. The costume is a little off, but it’s certainly a Wonder Woman costume. What does that say about me when I look at a photo of a nude woman and I notice that her red boots are a little off because they don’t have the gold trim normally seen on Wonder Woman’s boots?

Part of me is somewhat surprised that Playboy magazine is still in circulation. Not only because it’s a magazine and magazines are a lot less prevalent in the age of the Internet, but because it is a magazine dedicated to showing pretty females in the buff. I would have thought the Internet would have replaced the need of a magazine such as Playboy. Maybe Playboy is for men that like to look at naked woman, but don’t know how to find porn on the Internet.

In other words, really dumb men. Not being able to find pictures of nude women on the Internet is a lot like not being able to find water at the ocean.

I have to admit that this doesn’t bother me all that much. I’m not a fan of the sexualization of comic book characters, but I guess that’s when it’s done by the actual comic book publishers. For instance, when Marvel Comics authorized that ridiculous Mary Jane Watson statue. The one where she is doing the laundry. For some reason, this doesn’t bug me too much.

It wouldn’t bother me either if Superman or Batman received the same treatment. In fact, I would think it was pretty funny.

I’m not even sure if DC Comics or their parent company, Warner Brothers, authorized Playboy to do this or if it fell into the territory of fair use. It’s not an exact copy of the Wonder Woman costume, but she is referred to as Wonder Woman on the bottom left of the cover.

What’s Joe Quesada’s problem with divorced people?

January 4, 2008 3 Comments

Comic Book Resources continues with part 3 of a 5-part interview with Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada concerning the recent storyline involving Spider-Man. Quesada has long made it known that he believes having Peter Parker/Spider-Man married to Mary Jane Watson was a big mistake. He believes that it somehow curtails good story telling by having the character married. Or he thinks that kids can’t relate to a married character. It’s hard to keep track of the many reasons Quesada has for not wanting Spider-Man married.

Quesada’s reasons seem to change a lot.

If the belief that Spider-Man must be a single to craft interesting stories seems silly, the method Quesada uses to achieve this objective seems absolutely insane – Spider-Man makes a deal with the Devil that will save his elderly aunt from dying if he allows the Devil to not only magically undue his marriage, but to make everyone magically forget that they were even married. As though the marriage never happened. Oh, and the Devil also agrees to make everyone magically forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. A fact everyone knows ever since he removed his mask on national television and announced that he was Peter Parker (see Civil War #2).

Needless to say, fans have been critical of this magical storyline.

In the Comic Book Resources interview, Quesada is asked why he didn’t just have Peter and Mary Jane get a divorce. It’s a good question. Here is Quesada’s reply:

Sure, that would have been a very easy solution. However, how would a parent feel when they had to explain to their kid that Spider-Man just got divorced from his wife? How would that headline read across the AP or on USA today? The same can be said with an annulment. Sure, divorce is a reality of life, but Peter Parker and Spider-Man are not the types of characters that would do that. Spider-Man is a worldwide icon and is considered one of the good guys, like Superman.

Not the type of characters that would do that? What is that supposed to mean? I’m sure the people that have gone through a divorce would like to know. Speaking as just such a person, I certainly would like to know.

Someone can’t be considered a good guy if they have been divorced? This hits a nerve with me. Normally one only finds this type of ignorant bigotry at an evangelical church, not in a comic book.

So Peter Parker isn’t the type of character to get a divorce, but he is the type character to enter into a magical arraignment with the Devil? The inference is that it’s better to strike a deal with Satan then it is to get divorced. Either way Peter is breaking his marriage vows. One requires him to enter into an unholy pact with Satan, the other requires him to sign a bunch of paperwork and pay a lawyer.

Joe Quesada picks option number one evidently because it makes him a better person.

Quesada claims parents would have had a hard time explaining Spider-Man getting a divorce. Imagine how hard it will be for them to put a positive spin on Spider-Man entering into an agreement with Satan.

How is that preferable to getting a divorce?