BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Comics: not just for kids?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:49 / 04.02.03
Well, who are the people you feel should just drop everything and focus on kid's stuff? There's a lot of writers and artists who just aren't cut out for that sort of thing, or are working on longterm projects that it would be inappropriate to abandon. Are you talking about Marvel and DC, the mainstream creators, or are you extending your call to arms to the indie world, the Fantagraphics and the Drawn & Quarterly folks?
 
 
The Natural Way
15:51 / 04.02.03


BIG Heads.

LONG arms.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:53 / 04.02.03
Marvel and DC primarily. Make Batman and Spider-Man interesting to kids again.

Even better, make up a bunch of new characters.
 
 
sleazenation
15:53 / 04.02.03
Well There is stuff like jaye stephens Where's it at Jet Cat which has been placed on sholastics book list in Canada. There is also stuff like metaphrog's Louis comics which like 1984 for kids...
 
 
The Natural Way
15:54 / 04.02.03
Try again.

Eurgrh:

 
 
The Natural Way
15:57 / 04.02.03
Still nothing!



Here's a link
 
 
Gary Lactus
16:14 / 04.02.03
Is this "Adult Comics"?I take it all back. This is not for kids:

should offend

This should be banned and burned.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:16 / 04.02.03
Cameron, do you have any plans on working on any projects intended specifically for children? I think Catwoman is a good start at attempting to create an all-ages comic in spite of Brubaker's intentions, and that's mostly your doing. I'd say that what you're doing goes along with what Grant's trying to do with New X-Men, ie making fun, modern superhero comics which are, as Grant has said, written for smart 13 year olds. Are you going to try to do anything for younger kids, though?
 
 
Mystery Gypt
16:25 / 04.02.03
i don't know if i can take it for granted that we need kids in order to grow the comics industry. an industry doesn't have to "start 'em young" in order to sell its product to a large demographic. record companies don't have too much trouble selling beethoven or thelonius monk cds, and those aren't going out to 11 year olds. i spend way too much money shopping around for, say, palm pilot upgrades, and that would have bored my tits off when i was 12. the porn industry thrives and it's totally inaccessible to children. hell, viagra sells like crazy and it's only targetted to people who will be dead soon.

i think you could just as easily make the argument that comics would be able to grow as an industry only AFTER the associations with "kid's entertainment" was completely crushed. sure, we could have kid's comic just like we have "young adult novels" or whatever, but there's no reason for that to be the life'blood of the industry.

i'm pretty fucking tired of hearing about how everything needs to be directed at kids these days, actually.

if 11 year olds can listen to eminem, they can read preacher... and catwoman.
 
 
CameronStewart
16:32 / 04.02.03
Flux, in addition to trying my best to coerce Ed to make Catwoman more all-ages-friendly (particularly in evidence in the storyline I'm currently illustrating), I painted [a href="http://www.cameron-stewart.com/images/lost.jpg"]this[/a] recently and it's sparked an idea for a kid's book that I think I'm going to try and develop.
 
 
CameronStewart
16:33 / 04.02.03
Fuck.

Sorry.
 
 
The Natural Way
16:33 / 04.02.03
You know how threads are normally hijacked by trolls? This one's been set upon by blokes with serious heads.

I'm just going to pop over to a ninjas and pirates thread to have a really serious discussion....

BIG HEADS!! BIG HEADS!!!!
 
 
The Natural Way
16:47 / 04.02.03
Sorry, that laast post sounds more sarky thsn I intended. I really am into this idea of reappropriating sillyspace with pipes and furrowed brows!

As Jon Richman once said:

"Time for adventure [big heads! LONG ARMS!]"
 
 
CameronStewart
17:04 / 04.02.03
>>>an industry doesn't have to "start 'em young" in order to sell its product to a large demographic.<<<

Hmmm. You really don't think that conditioning people to consume a particular product at a young, impressionable age will make them more likely to continue being a consumer for the rest of their lives? And even if an industry didn't HAVE to do it - it certainly wouldn't hurt.

>>>record companies don't have too much trouble selling beethoven or thelonius monk cds, and those aren't going out to 11 year olds.<<<

No, but Britney Spears and N-Sync cds are, and in terms of sales volume they kick the shit out of Beethoven and Monk.

>>>i spend way too much money shopping around for, say, palm pilot upgrades, and that would have bored my tits off when i was 12. the porn industry thrives and it's totally inaccessible to children. hell, viagra sells like crazy and it's only targetted to people who will be dead soon.<<<

Utterly specious reasoning. Pornography and Viagra are products for which demand arises from an insatiable basic human urge, even perhaps necessity. You might as well say - hey, the toilet paper and drinking water industries do just fine without having to market to children...

It's fallacious logic.

>>>i'm pretty fucking tired of hearing about how everything needs to be directed at kids these days, actually.<<<

Oh well. Say goodbye to comics as a viable living.

>>>if 11 year olds can listen to eminem, they can read preacher... and catwoman<<<

Well, one might arfue that 11 year olds SHOULDN'T be listening to Eminem....but that's another thread entirely.

Fuck, I need to get to work.
 
 
Hieronymus
17:18 / 04.02.03
Isn't Marvel wheeling out that Beezer nonsense in an attempt to rope in some of the kid market?

What are the odds the kids will even notice?
 
 
Mr Tricks
18:01 / 04.02.03
Cameron:
That's a great piece... what was your medium?
 
 
CameronStewart
18:06 / 04.02.03
Photoshop 7.
 
 
dlotemp
20:45 / 04.02.03
Geez - a guy goes to work and comes back to suddenly find over 40 additional replies!!!!

To Tannenhauser - I must apologize for misunderstanding your earlier statements. I still feel a bit perplexed by them so I'll gracefully bow out of discussing them further. Again, I apologize for misrepresenting you.

I'd like to agree that Cameron's point is a far more salient , and Tannhauser, if you were trying to make Cameron's point, than I can only agree - there should be more comics for a kids audience. I have no problem with comics for kids. I have no problem making comics that would appeal and sell to any age group. I do think hanging the future of sales only upon a youth market is specious. If anything, Cameron's anecdote about Brubaker writing Catwoman to adults is evidence suggesting that the adult market should not be forgotten. I don't think Cameron or Tannhauser is suggesting that; although a comment like F**k adult comics gets you thinking. I am for making more comics that appeal to kids. Let's grab that market, absolutely.

As an adult reader of comics, I may enjoy all-ages or young ages material but I actively look for comics that appeal to issues and themes comtemporary with my maturity (or lack thereof). In fact, I've all but eliminated every title or book over the past 5 years that didn't appeal to more sophisticated interests. So, please don't F**k adult comics. I hear and recognize the point about satisfying the kids market, but I think there is a legitmate market with future potential among adult readers. I know too many other over 25 years old comic readers who want comics that deal with adult themes to think it's a fluke.

But, I disagree with anyone who feels comics are inherently meant for kids. They're not, becuase they don't have to be.

PS - sorry again Tannhauser. didn't intend to miss your point.
 
 
PatrickMM
20:54 / 04.02.03
Marvel and DC primarily. Make Batman and Spider-Man interesting to kids again.

I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough comics out there for kids, it's that kids aren't familiar with the distribution system for comics, and likely aren't near a comic stores, and also, most kids don't have the money for a long term comics habit.

I think that Ultimate Spider Man is a perfect low continuity example of Spider Man being made interesting to kids, and that Batman: Long Halloween is the kind of comic that would also appeal to kids.

Reading through this thread, there seems to be the mistaken impression that kids want stuff aimed at kids, and is pure kiddie. I think a kid would be much more interested in reading slightly edgy things, like softcore Ennis (Just a Pilgrim), then reading the Adventures of Bunny in BunnyLand, or some kids comic like that.

The current system just doesn't allow comics to be exposed to kids. Kids get most of their media exposure from television, and comics aren't present on television.

The best way to get kids reading comics, or reading in general, is to have parents who read. In the current situation, reading comics is something strange, and the average parent doesn't sit back and read a comic with their kids, or even read a comic around their kids. Until this happens, kids aren't going to read comics. We have to target adults, and then it will spread.

If we target kids, kids are going to read comics for a few years, then dump then, because they will be percieved as kiddie.

If we target the average adult, the trickle down effect will result in kids who read comics.
 
 
sleazenation
20:54 / 04.02.03
So what do people make of x-statix in all this - its a kids comic - rated pg and everything and it contains a level of pophistication that a knowing audience appreciates - great cross-over potential so might it be the future of comics? not according to sales...
 
 
PatrickMM
20:56 / 04.02.03
And just to add, if you want to get kids into comics, there's a lot of good stuff out there that appeals to the average 8-11 year old. Give them Ultimate Spider Man, Ultimate X-Men, Planetary, Just a Pilgrim, Starman, etc.

And once they hit 13-14, bring out the hardware, Watchmen, Sandman, Invis, etc.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:20 / 04.02.03
I don't know about that.

I don't see the point in stressing old franchise characters to kids, or pushing superhero stuff on them just because they are kids. This may come as a shock, but not all little kids want to read about superheroes, especially not the girls. I think the range of stories written for a younger audience needs to become more broad, because if you're going to pin all of your hopes for the youth market on 'modernized' versions of what worked 20-30 years ago and adaptations of licensed characters, it's just going to be bound for failure.
 
 
CameronStewart
21:53 / 04.02.03
>>>I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough comics out there for kids, it's that kids aren't familiar with the distribution system for comics,<<<

Well, it's a little of column a) and a little of column b)...

>>> and likely aren't near a comic stores, and also, most kids don't have the money for a long term comics habit.<<<

And columns c) and d) too. There's no one thing that can be solely blamed for this. As I say, fucked from the ground up.

Comics should definitely be cheaper. Fuck your fancy computer colouring and glossy paper, which drives the costs up - I just got back from Japan where the majority of comics are black and white and printed on flimsy newsprint, hundreds of pages thick for less than the price of one flimsy-ass Marvel or DC book. And everyone reads them. No one cares that there's no lush Photoshop effects or smooth silky paper.

>>>I think that Ultimate Spider Man is a perfect low continuity example of Spider Man being made interesting to kids<<<

From personal experience, I say not. I've tested this shit, man - I've given kids copies of Ultimate Spider-Man and old Marvel Tales reprints, and they go for the old stuff every time - the stories that don't take 4 entire issues just to get the title character into his costume for the first time, the stories that aren't filled with interminable rambling "realistic" dialogue. Maybe I just know cool kids.

You know who reads Ultimate Spider-Man? Surprise! Adults. I see it in their hands when I'm at the comic shop. "It's really good, it's great for kids." Oh yeah, so why are YOU buying it then?

>>>Reading through this thread, there seems to be the mistaken impression that kids want stuff aimed at kids, and is pure kiddie. I think a kid would be much more interested in reading slightly edgy things, like softcore Ennis (Just a Pilgrim), then reading the Adventures of Bunny in BunnyLand, or some kids comic like that. <<<

There's also a mistaken impression that "for kids" means "condescending pap" like the hypothetical Adventures in Bunnyland. There's a middle ground - I want to see kids reading solid, exciting, well-crafted stories that don't resort to prurience, vulgarity or crudity (and before some incredibly clever person like Flyboy comes along to suggest, with a well-placed link to a Jim Steranko rant, that I'm some puritanical fundamentalist nut who wants all sinful things banished from the world - I'm NOT, there's a place for that stuff, but not in children's fiction). There's an astonishing wealth of talent already in the comics field(we don't need to bring them from the outside, Flux) that could work wonders if they just excercised a little responsibility and thought about the Bigger Picture.

>>>The best way to get kids reading comics, or reading in general, is to have parents who read. In the current situation, reading comics is something strange, and the average parent doesn't sit back and read a comic with their kids, or even read a comic around their kids. Until this happens, kids aren't going to read comics. We have to target adults, and then it will spread. <<<

My parents not only never read comics, but are seemingly physically incapable of doing so - they certainly weren't the ones who introduced me to comics as a kid. I discovered them on my own when I had a bit of pocket money and time to look around a newsagents. Did your parents read comics to you as a kid? Is that the only way you would have become a comics reader?

>>>If we target kids, kids are going to read comics for a few years, then dump then, because they will be percieved as kiddie.<<<

Once more, simply, I'm suggesting that mainstream Marvel and DC make their primary aim to attract kids again by working with creators who are committed to producing material that will appeal to the broadest possible age group - "all-ages" material that is as suitable and interesting for a child as it would be for an adult. It can be done - again I point to Harry Potter, The Iron Giant, etc etc, Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four, etc, etc... And - crucially - this must be ENFORCED EDITORIALLY. Make the writers and artists understand that they are HIRED to make stories for KIDS. This isn't "art", it's business. Anyone's got a problem with it, anyone's going to protest that they can't express their personal artistic vision by having Green Lantern fuck and swear - there's the door, go make your art on your own. Good luck to you. But as long as you're working on Batman, you do it so my ten-year-old son can enjoy the hell out of it. (That's only a hypothetical son, by the way, I'm not a father - )

Vertigo can keep doing the adult books, Clowes and Ware and Tomine can keep doing their thing....but that number one focus by the Big Two has got to be - in THE SHORT TERM, not forever and ever amen - getting those kids in the shops again, instead of hanging around outside waiting for their dads to buy Ultimate X-Men.

In a cranky mood tonight, expecting a can of worms to be opened now...

-C
 
 
CameronStewart
21:58 / 04.02.03
Oh, and I would like to say that I also agree with Flux's last post. Part of coming up with all-ages material would be to create a bunch of new characters, not necessarily superheroes.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
22:08 / 04.02.03
There's an astonishing wealth of talent already in the comics field(we don't need to bring them from the outside, Flux) that could work wonders if they just excercised a little responsibility and thought about the Bigger Picture.

I don't know what to make of this. Yeah, there's loads of very talented people in the industry, but it seems that very few of them are inclined to create work for kids, and a lot of the people who do are usually just turning out retro versions of the things they dug as kids. Why are you so turned off by the idea of reaching out to people who could make great children's comics, but are scared off by the comics industry?

I think one thing that the industry as a whole desperately needs is to bring in people from the outside, and not necessarily established people either. There's a lot of talented illustrators out there, many of whom would like to work on children's books, and I can't see why those people shouldn't be considered. Bring some fresh people into things, shake things up a bit, break away from formula. I think if you want to reach out to wider audiences, doing that would be essential.
 
 
dlotemp
23:02 / 04.02.03
A decent point Flux but I think it falls under Occum's Razor, meaning bringing many people from outside the field to replace those inside, who may be able and willing to compose good kids comics, is an unnecessarily complicated step. Also, it ain't nice to those already here and capable. I'm not talking cronyism, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater. Still, I must agree that there is nothing wrong with having new blood circulate through the system.

I've got to agree that kids don't necessarily want superheroes. There has been an astonishing growth in the sales of manga tpbs through mass media outlets like Waldenbooks and Barnes&Nobles. The intended audience is kids and they seem to be buying the stuff. This could mean any number of things a) these books are more readily available at the places where kids shop; b) the books appeal to them; or c) there is a symbiosis between these books and the video games they're playing. I could come up with a few more half thought out reasons too. I must concede that I don't have the data to back up those examples so feel free to post more accurate data.

The point being that kids don't necessarily want superheroes or even the current stuff. I also know of some kids who dont' like the current Marvel books but enjoy the stories in the Essential Spider-man or FF books.

One caveat about reducing the price of comics - commercial distributors, like newstands, supermarkets, etc. - may refuse to properly showcase or even sell comics if the profit margin is reduced, which a lower cover price would cause to happen. This would apply to the standard $2.50 - $2.99 comic. The distributor wouldn't make much off of a $1.50 comic as compared to a $4.99 copy of National Geographic or Time. In the 70s, some newstand owners hid the comics behind magazines because the profits on them were awful. Mark Alessi seems to have a decent idea of publishing those small tpbs for $8 that encompass between 7-8 issues. Only sales will tell if those books succeed though.

Cameron - do you have any price comparisons between the Japanese books and the North American stuff. I have no idea how much those things cost.

thanks.

PS to Cameron - get back to work on Catwoman. :-)
 
 
CameronStewart
02:22 / 05.02.03
>>>Why are you so turned off by the idea of reaching out to people who could make great children's comics, but are scared off by the comics industry?<<<

I'm not, Flux, I'm not at all. New talent is always appreciated. Anything that'll work.

But I don't see the point in assuming that the only remaining option is to bring in new blood. I think that there are plenty of people already in the business who could do dynamite stuff if only they were given a bit more....guidance by editorial, or if they actually gave some thought to what they were doing.

I think it's a very - if you'll forgive me - Barbelithian attitude that these artists should be allowed to do whatever they want, because they're, like, artists, man, and they've got to express themselves creatively... I said it earlier and I'll say it again - this is a business, and if we want our business to survive we make product that will sell and generate profit. Anyone who truly wishes to create works of ART, to sastisfy their need to express themselves untainted by commercial pressure and compromise, is free to do so...but they've got to be willing to finance it themselves. The minute you are hired by a company to produce work for them, you're not an artist, you're an EMPLOYEE, and you work according to the demands of your employers.

I honestly don't currently consider myself an "artist," in any way other than I'm someone who draws pictures for a living, as opposed to someone who sells shoes. I am a hired illustrator. I work for a company and as long as I continue to cash paycheques from them I will do what is asked of me. I try to put as much effort as I possibly can into creating the best work of which I am capable (except when I spend all day arguing on a message board ) so that I can remain a valuable employee and continue to make a living. To reference Kirby again, he never kicked up a fuss when asked to draw comics that weren't personally artistically satisfying to him, because he was doing a job - when monster comics were in, he drew monster comics. When crime comics were popular he drew crime comics. War, dinosaurs, romance - he drew whatever was required of him based on the demands of the market, and did the best job that he could. I take pride in my work but I suffer from no illusions that I am making "Art" and as such should be allowed to have total creative freedom. If DC wanted me to draw explicit sex and gore in the comics, as long as I accepted the paycheque, I would do it. If I didn't want to draw it, I would quit (I'd do the latter, by the way).

This is not to say that I'm going to be doing work-for-hire for the rest of my life - I do have artistic aspirations, but right now this is what suits me and my career plan the best. And it's not to say that you can't create significant artistic work within the commercial system - but I do think that more "artists" need to be aware of their place within that system if they choose to be a part of it. I think there needs to be a much harder editorial stance that prevents inappropriate material from being passed. Those that are content with continuing to produce work-for-hire can continue to do so. Those that are unhappy with their creative visions being compromised are free to go it alone - which would probably lead to some better comics anyway.

Typed too much today. Bleh.
 
 
CameronStewart
02:41 / 05.02.03
But I forgot this:

>>>Cameron - do you have any price comparisons between the Japanese books and the North American stuff. I have no idea how much those things cost.<<<

I have right here in front of me a copy of "Young Jump," one of MANY weekly comics magazines that are published in Japan. 414 pages, black and white on cheap newsprint, with glossy colour covers and inserts. The price is 270 yen, which is approximately 2.25 US dollars or 1.40 pounds.

414 pages. 2 dollars and 25 cents.

Compare with this other comic I have here, Marvel Comics' "Truth" #3. 22 pages, full colour. Cover price 3.50 US dollars.

"Young Jump" is THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY-TWO pages longer and a dollar-twenty five less expensive. It also has a circulation of roughly 3.4 million copies in Japan.

The best-selling comic in the Western market right now is Loeb and Lee's Batman...at 125,000 copies.

Work it out...
 
 
BryanDude
06:58 / 05.02.03
Thought i'd chime in a bit. Comics should be made, marketed and sold for everybody, not just kids or young adults or adults. Personally, i believe that most comics today are actually pretty suitable for kids and the like. Stuff like mainstream DC stuff and some marvel would sell great to kids. Put them in toy stores and places where kids will be and you're good to go. I mean they're kids for christ sakes, the easiest demographic to sell shit to. They will love anything anybody says to. Just look at Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh and Disney toys and books. Obviously these arent comics, but they are childrens items that sell like crazy, so maybe they should follow their business model. Its almost unimportant what the actual item is being sold, but about how its being sold and to who. We're so wrapped around with our own self-importance that we lose sight of the goal of MAKING MONEY. Cameron is soooo right about working in comics being business and truth rings so clearly that it shouldnt even need to be said. We need money more than anything else. More than artistic expression, more than creativity. It more important to sell it than to have a high quality product. It just goes to Cameron's high standards that all kids comics should be of high quality. It should be made to sell.
 
 
Sax
07:22 / 05.02.03
But the question is, are kids for comics? Matthew Kelly, who did stand-up in his early days, would probably argue yes.
 
 
glassonion
09:09 / 05.02.03
wow this thread's brilliant. i've not read any of it.

my mum's the librarian at the school that i went to. she pushes comics on the kids, 2oooads for twenty pee a pop, cos she's a cool mum who knows that kids, like adults, actually enjoy reading stuff that is smarter than they are. most of the kids don't read the comics, but one's addicted to them. ten years ago, there was still only one kid in the school prepared to use his saturday job money to support the largely undeserving comics industry. there'll always be just enough people who give a fuck to keep comics going, and possibly at times a few more. don't go on about it.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply