BARBELITH underground
 

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


The Impact of Image Comics

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sleazenation
12:45 / 09.04.06
So, the other week a friend of mine from Qubec invited me to meet some of her friends who had come over from Canada to visit. They were thinking of doing a comic and my friend knows how much I love comics so she thought we should meet up. It was a real experience because they came to comics with a totally different perspective than I was mostly used to. this manifested in a number of ways, but most significantly, they weren't really interested nor had much time to read Marvel and DC comics - the stuff that got them reading as kids was Image comics - I asked them about what appealed to them about Image and they told me it was partly the printing and the colour reproduction, but also the fact that Image did stuff that other comics didn't do at the time.

We talked about the writing and it did make me think that a lot of writing on DC and MArvel (now and then) was pretty poor...

But, yeah, this is largely rambling, what i wanted to say is that we are now nearly 15 years on from the first Image comics and I wanted to ask the folks here what they thought the Imact of Image had been both on comics readers and the market place as a whole...
 
 
Mario
13:38 / 09.04.06
Image was the first time that I can think of where a cult of personality built up around a creator (or group of creators). The content of a story became less important than who was doing it. And those who were on top gained celebrity status, something practically unheard of before.

(There were hints of this before, of course, but never to quite the same degree)

Nowadays, it's more writers than artists (with a few exceptions) but the mindset has never really gone away completely.
 
 
Crestmere
15:00 / 09.04.06
I have to disagree about the cult of personality around creators beginning with Image. The real start was Stan Lee.

But Image did show that creator owned properties can be just as successful as the stuff the Big Two put out.

And it showed the importance of having a good writer on a book. The current wave of writer-driven (the wave started with Moore on Swamp thing, I think that the start of Vertigo was the second phase and Morrison on JLA was probably the start of the third phase of the wave) books owes a huge amount of its success to Image and the horrible stories they had.

I mean even the Superstar artists today share billing with writers. For Tomorrow was Jim Lee's Superman but it was also Jim Lee's Superman drawn by Brian Azzarello (who i don't think gets anywhere near enough credit for it). If it were an Image story it would have been Jim Lee's Superman and the writer wouldn't have mattered, it could have been a monkey (and I think monkeys actually wrote a fair amount of the Marvel, DC and Image books of this period, at least looking at it in terms of quality).
 
 
eddie thirteen
15:02 / 09.04.06
Tellingly, I think the lasting impact of Image has more to do with economics than anything artistic. Their perpetually late books (in an era when that wasn't yet the norm) put more than a few comics shops out of business, and went a long way toward reducing the direct sales market to the miserable state it still is in today. So thanks for that, guys. And for Wizard. And, indirectly, for the introduction of the diva/cult of personality to the world of comics, which brought us such wonderful things as the WEF. And also for decompression, which began life as comics written by artists who couldn't actually write, and so substituted sequential splash pages and double-page spreads for pages where people talked and stuff.

...On the other hand, I really, really liked the Spawn cartoon on HBO. So...thanks for not being too involved in that and making it suck, Image!

Image now doesn't make up for the sins of its past, but it is a place where little-known creators can publish their original work and have a chance at real distribution. I understand said creators have to pony up cash for the privilege, and I don't know whether they retain full copyright -- the former I can forgive (since, if the book is successful, the creators should get that cash back; it's a gamble, and I can understand why Image wouldn't want to gamble alone), the latter I'd like to know more about (but I believe the creators do retain copyright) -- but even so, it's a hell of a lot more than Marvel or DC do for up-and-comers.

Modern Image doesn't have much of a brand identity, so it's hard to judge what it's doing artistically; some of its books are crap, some are not. They don't seem especially discriminating.
 
 
eddie thirteen
15:28 / 09.04.06
I have to disagree about the cult of personality around creators beginning with Image. The real start was Stan Lee.

Well, you could argue that it started with EC, too -- because there were few if any continuing characters, the emphasis had to be placed on the creators. I think that was the first time artists (though not writers) were routinely credited. I think modern comic book celebrity is a far different beast, though. It might just be a matter of the old school guys having more class; I dunno. Frankly, even Stan displayed more humility than a lot of current creators.
 
 
erisian
17:41 / 09.04.06
the Maxx was on Image and Maxx makes mouths happy. Mmmmmm.

My friend brought home all his comics from his childhood to reread, though, and upon checking them out I noticed and most of them were Image and most of them kind of sucked. All flash, little content, lotsa cliches.

But, then, a lot of my comic-reading friends are in it more for the art and style than for the writing, and I don't plan on telling them they're 'reading them wrong' any time soon.

It all reminds me of a certain Jhonen Vasques one-off comic, when I think about it too much, with the two bank-robbers fighting the two cliched superheros.
 
 
sleazenation
18:37 / 09.04.06
The funny thing is both the Maxx and that particular Jhoenan Vasquez strip came up in the conversation...

Yeah, I will always big up the Maxx, a series that reall does seserve to be more widely read (and is now available in its entirity as six graphic novels).

But I really have a hard time defending Image comics on the basis of art, because quite often the art was not particularly good. The knowledge and study of anatomy of many of the Image artists, especially of Rob Liefeld, was really quite poor. But the paper quality, colouring and design really were strikingly different to the vast majority of of Marvel and DC comics at the time...
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
21:48 / 09.04.06
eddie, Image creators DO retain full copyright [not even having to give the publisher a cent if they license their comic to Hollywood] and don't have to pony up money or publication, as far as I understand how it works. it was Speakeasy that had a similar model, but indeed put on the creators the weight of having to cover costs if the book didn't sell.

after an Image book is released, it gets from the 1st sales: 1- the printing costs and 2- a fixed fee to cover production [which IS fixed, no matter the book sells 1 copy or a million] plus 3- an extra small fee if your book is a GN, because it takes a longer time in this case to recoup the money [it's different mathematics here]. all this info is at their submission guidelines and message board, where Erik Larsen answers would-be authors' doubts.

I never liked Image's early "house" style, which was basically comics on crack and a lot of eye-hurting colorful splash pages with posing superheroes - they looked more like an anabolic series of pin-ups done mostly by bad and spoiled artists [and Rob Liefeld was the poster child for that, although today it's kind of hair metal-funny to look at those times].

they WERE representative of that amped-up 90s period, zeitgeist-wise [with, sure, the problem of helping form a generation of shitty pencillers - I knew some]; for a while helped comicshops with increased revenue [otherwise McFarlane wouldn't have the money to ask all those toplist guys to write SPAWN] and we can look back with some fondness to that style in a campy way. Millar and Morrison did, with their contributions to YOUNGBLOOD [past] and WILDCATS [future].

you can't take from them the fact it was formed by a bunch of superstar artists who gave a "fuckyou" to the Big 2 and built up their own operation, to publish their own books and retains the copyrights. and then it grew - thanks to Jim Valentino and now Larsen - into the stilystically bridge between Fantagraphics and Marvel/DC [in my opinion], with the best and, as far as I know, fairer indie publishing model for new authors.

who knew?
 
 
Janean Patience
08:32 / 14.05.07
The Image Style: what influence has that had? What can be done with it? Is it still around?

I missed Image completely due to a combination of luck and judgement, and the two comics from that period I've read are probably the worst I've ever read. Image the company has gone on to better things. Artists no longer feel they can do without writers. Speculation is still with us but at a much, much lower level.

Reading through the Age of Apocalypse for the first time recently, though, the influence of the Image art style is impossible to ignore. There's barely a male character whose head couldn't fit into his forearm, and every woman has those Jim Lee breasts and Silvestri legs. Hatching rules, some objects are minutely detailed and others are just pen sketches, anatomy is not bad so much as ignored. Double-page spreads seem full of dischordant, clashing angles and movement, composition designed to confuse.

The Image style was immensely influential in the 1990s. It's no more stylised than, say, Andi Watson's art. Does it still have any influence? I don't read a whole lot of superhero comics but I haven't seen much of it. Where did it go? What is it good for? Even Alan Moore, generally adept at using different styles to tell his own story, couldn't get clear of it soon enough when he was working for Liefield. Could it be used for something good? Why was it popular then and not now?
 
 
Spaniel
09:13 / 14.05.07
While the question of Image's success is difficult to unpick from the speculator boom, I suspect it came down to a number of factors not least of which was the company's predilection for books where every character had a knife or a gun or a claw or a chain or some combination thereof and was rendered in such a way as to invite us to wallow in grotesque, unfetted, imminent physicality, with the promise of some kind of penetrative sexviolence ever present in the dialogue, plot, design and illustration. Without wishing to get very wishy-washy Image comics just stank of teenage desire and fantasy: heaving, bursting, priapic bodies; muscle piled upon muscle; flesh on flesh; brute motivations and little in the way of rhyme or reason.

It was all about wanking, basically.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:24 / 14.05.07
In the notes at the back of the 'Shadowhawk' trade, Jim Valentino, the writer/artist talks about wanting to create a series that sold a million, in the way that other guys at Image had, at the time.

I quote, selectively;

'I was almost self-consciously aware of the fact that I was the only original member never to crack 500,000 (let alone the million barrier, like most of the group had!). Plus, I was pretty anxious about my ability to hold up my end (thanks to buds Rob and Todd for their encouragement) ...

I believed that with the ever-growing popularity of Guardians, with my increased visibility as a member of Image, and with Mark's fan favorite status as the artist on Ghost Rider, I would have my million selling book. I would therefore be on par with the other guys, more or less. Mark thought I was nuts ...

The rest, as they say is history.'

The strong implication being that 'Shadowhawk', which concerns a man who seems to wander about aimlessly, breaking the spines, as opposed to arms, legs, whatever, of criminals, sold a million copies, in the end. And there were only four issues.

I guess they were different times, the Nineties.

But barely a day goes by when I don't think about 'Shadowhawk', and the success of his antics ...

'Last night, you threw down the paper in disgust

You have stood silently by long enough.

A grandmother was brutally raped.

A young boy eviscerated.

You used to believe in the system.

You can't anymore ...

It has failed you.

It has failed society.' etc, etc.
 
 
Mario
09:48 / 14.05.07
One positive impact was that it proved that indy publishers could break the Marvel/DC monopoly. Of course, at least two of those publishers (McFarlane & Leifeld) turned out to be as mercenary as the Big Two anyway.
 
 
ZF!
11:11 / 14.05.07
I'd have to agree with the printing and colour quality production comment, as well as the comment on the "Image style".

I started reading comics because of Knightfall. One of my school friends was into comics so he kinda introduced me to the whole scene and that included the Image books.

I remember reading a Spawn (or something else being put out by Image), then reading a Batman comic, and being dissapointed how bland the Batman book was. I was perplexed to how two completely different creatures could be being produced at the same time. Were DC and Marvel the mainstays of comicdom completely oblivious?

DC (and Marvel) published on newsprint, had faded colours, and mostly had really bad (read boring) art (more on DC's part to be sure).

At that age I was more impressed by the stylised art on the Image books and my fondest wish was for all the Image artists to work on DC characters (whom I loved from my childhood).

Consider the situation today, most comic publishers publish on glossy (or that semi-glossy) paper and "hot" artists work across all the big companies.

I think without Image, DC and Marvel would have resisted improving the quality of their books for as long as possible, until the cheapest option would have been the semi-glossy paper as well as paying less for your non "hot" artists.

In my mind, Image made comics a prettier place, and I can't complain.
 
 
Spaniel
12:09 / 14.05.07
Interesting that your focus was so firmly on the art. While the big 2 weren't exactly publishing their finest work at the time, Image comics were, on the whole, horrendously badly written, Spawn inparticular.

Seriously, go back and read some of that stuff. It's unbelievable that anyone saw fit to publish it.
 
 
ZF!
17:40 / 14.05.07
Oh no, I fully realised that even then. My friends agreed at the time, that Image had the best art (and paper etc.), Marvel the best stories and DC the best characters.
(Though truth be told I never really like Marvel or their stories).

Still, even now, I will enjoy a book by a well known writer that I like, if the art has been done by a good/stylised/whatever artist more than a mediocre (imho) artist.

e.g. From memory I was really dissapointed when Ryan Benjamin replaced Oscar Jiminez on The Flash.

As to why we had such a focus on the art, my friends and I were into art. Most of us drew/sketched/whatever and the stylised art coming out from Image was inspirational to us.
 
 
sleazenation
19:29 / 14.05.07
I don't things are as easy as a straight Marvel/DC Vs Image dichotomy.

All of Image's core creators had well regarded regular titles at Marvel having built up their fanbase there (and, for some of them, at DC too). They also further developed their stylised art there and were given, new titles with improved paper stock, cleaner printing, vibrant and often full bleed colour.

The seeds of Image were definitely sown at Marvel, Image was their full expression.
 
 
Benny the Ball
08:07 / 16.05.07
I think a lot of people are into Comic Books more for the art than the writing - or they were especially back in the 1990's - nothing else could possibly explain Youngblood existing.

I went through my image phase, picked up almost all of the books out of curiosity and wanted to really see new and interesting writers and artists appear, free to create - but I soon got tired of the terrible stories, the terrible delays, the terrible writing.
 
 
ZF!
08:57 / 16.05.07
I think of the early to mid 90's as the *Image Age* (I'm sure I'm not unique in that respect) since style did dominate over substance for a while.

The top selling books at the time *were* all stylised/Image type art.
Sure they didn't come out that often but when they did, they sold like hotcakes.

Granted, the consequent implosion almost (apparently) killed the industry, but even so, I think a precedent was set, for the other companies to follow.

You can still see the effect of the Image Age on books today. All of those artists Liefeld, Lee, Silvestri, Mike Turner, Campbell etc. If/when they put a book out, it sells extremely well.

I think it's really only since around 2000 that we've had the industry move to aknowledge the superstar/widescreen writers. With Ellis, Millar, Morrison, Waid etc. (a trend, I think initially started by Morrisons JLA)

Still, all of those writers are quite particular about the artists they use to illustrate their work. They have to know how to package their product and make people recognise the story as well.

Art, is still in a way paramount. I think we have Image to thank for that.
 
 
Janean Patience
10:21 / 16.05.07
The Paschal Lamb: I was more impressed by the stylised art on the Image books and my fondest wish was for all the Image artists to work on DC characters.

Boboss: Interesting that your focus was so firmly on the art. While the big 2 weren't exactly publishing their finest work at the time, Image comics were, on the whole, horrendously badly written, Spawn in particular.

It's the art I'm on about. If it wasn't obvious at the time, certainly hindsight's verdict on Image's writing is damning. There was no writing. There were no writers. The art was always the hook, and it was stylised to the point of incomprehensibility. Realism, previously what everyone claimed to want in superhero comics, went out the window. Capes and chains and cartridge cases. What was appealing about it? What was it you particularly liked?

The Paschal Lamb: Art, is still in a way paramount. I think we have Image to thank for that.

Well, this is comics. However good the writing is it can't get past bad art. Bad figures, bad faces, panels where you need to puzzle through who's doing what to who can all drag down a good script. That's before you even consider storytelling. My own reactions to arcs in, say, New X-Men almost entirely depend on who's drawing the arc.

X-Men #1, the famous issue that sold ten million copies or whatever, had all the above flaws. It was an astonishing piece of shit in my opinion. The story struggled to get past the art. But my opinion was in no way the dominant one and it sold because of that art. Lee is now a decent draughtsman and strong storyteller while keeping the kewl elements. AssBats is an attempt to use the Image Style to tell a coherent story, I think. What else can be done with that style?
 
 
Spaniel
16:32 / 16.05.07
Realism, previously what everyone claimed to want in superhero comics, went out the window.

What's so fascinating is that so many of the people that I knew who liked Image comics would, at the time, have described the Image style as realistic. Thinking about it there's almost certainly a whole truckload of reasons for that and only some of them have anything to do with the illustration.
 
 
Janean Patience
16:38 / 16.05.07
"Realistically, we'll sell tons more if we strip the chicks, drape the dudes in chains and muscles and make the cover shiny. Think of the bottom line."
 
 
Twig the Wonder Kid
15:22 / 03.07.07

Image Comics in 2007:

No ads.
Single issues that stand as single issues.
Prompt trades keeping everything in print.
The "Fell" format.
The return of Letters Pages.

Fell, Casanova, Madman, Godland, Invincible

The foil embossed crap of years past are starting to fade from memory. What are Image doing right all of a sudden? Who do we have to thank?

I wish they'd do something about their website though, so I could find out when the stuff is coming out with more than just a few days notice.
 
 
John Octave
16:02 / 03.07.07
Who do we have to thank?

Jim Valentino and Erik Larsen, I would assume.

Most of the guys responsible for The foil embossed crap of years past have retired (McFarlane), vanished from the face of the earth (Liefeld), or gone back to DC or Marvel (Lee, Silvestri etc.).

With them gone, you were left with the lower-profile first Valentino and after that Larsen, who decided either

A) To turn Image into what it had always theoretically been, a collective of independent creators (idealist theory) or

B) That the old Image model was no longer commercially viable (especially since Valentino and Larsen aren't big enough names to keep the "studio" system going) and tried an alternate plan of action (cynical theory).

I don't really care for Valentino or Larsen's work as writers/artists/whatever one way or the other, but as publishers they've turned Image into a nice enough place.
 
 
Quantum
17:42 / 03.07.07
Boboss was entirely right about the wanky element, I agree. Image has always been synonymous with rubbish for me, I mean, the Darkness? Witchblade? Tomb Raider?!It's soft porn with powers, really.

we'll sell tons more if we strip the chicks, drape the dudes in chains and muscles and make the cover shiny
 
 
Twig the Wonder Kid
21:30 / 04.07.07
Are they still publishing these cock-in-hand comics though? From what I've seen of Image recently (see my post above) I'm almost prepared to forgive them for their hate crimes of the 90s.

Or are we arguing that we can't credit Image for changing, they are simply profit lead and it is the market that has changed.
 
 
the Fool
01:08 / 05.07.07
Quantum - Image has always been synonymous with rubbish for me, I mean, the Darkness? Witchblade? Tomb Raider?!It's soft porn with powers, really.

Well, to be fair, those comics aren't really Image anymore, they are Top Cow comics. I don't know how tied to Image Top Cow is anymore.

I think one of the big influence that Image had (especially in the early Wildcats, Stormwatch, and Cyberforce) was introducing cyberpunk to the superhero mythos. Evil Megacorps, technology as fashion, virtual reality etc...
 
 
Haus of Mystery
08:27 / 05.07.07
Image has taken the place of Dark Horse, as the leading publisher of innovative independent genre work. (looked like Oni ight've been in with a chance, but they seem awfully quiet these days) If Image need to sell a few Chains & Claws comics to subsidise the more interesting work then i can't say i mind.
 
 
Twig the Wonder Kid
14:49 / 20.07.07
If any of you are interested, I've expanded my thoughts above into a blog post: The Renaissance of Image Comics
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
17:36 / 20.07.07
Interesting write-up, Twig. I was left wondering what a female-character-driven Image comic in this mold - I'm thinking of the high quality Slimline stuff in particular - would look like now, given the history of monstrosities like that Witchblade comic upthread. Quality, I mean, rather than stroke-mags. Have there been any?
 
 
Twig the Wonder Kid
09:17 / 21.07.07
Cheers papers. And interesting point. Even though the line has radically changed stylistically, Image is still a boys club. There's no Jeanette Kahn at Image.
 
 
Twig the Wonder Kid
09:22 / 21.07.07
Actually, there's Strange Girl, by Remender and Nguyen. Teenage girl left behind in a post-Rapture world. I've never read it, but the concept sounds good.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
13:27 / 21.07.07
/threadrot

I've read it, and I wasn't hugely impressed. It's a killer concept really, and I could imagine it being done really well in a dozen different ways- as a comment on Left Behind and the like, amping up the religious horror so it's The Road set inside one of the nastier Bosch paintings- instead we get a teenage girl who sounds nothing like any teenage girl in the history of all humanity and fun-ee demons. I give it three thumbs up out of ten.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
02:22 / 23.07.07
I don't mean to imply that the books you highlighted don't do interesting with gender and sexuality - Gødland has Neela and the other Archer sisters all of whom are drawn (perhaps with broad strokes) as interesting, fleshed out characters who have different relationships with Adam, each other, and their position as "support staff." Casanova continues to delight me with its exploration of the "decadent spy fetish" genre's sexuality, including characters like Ruby Berzerko (Sexbot as unsexy, but still sexy and having self-determined sexuality), Ruby Seychelle (Sexbot wanting to escape from her initial programming) [there's something in there with the Rubies reminding me of Pris from Bladerunner as sexbots who transform themselves into new, self-determined creatures...]. But they're all male-driven and male-created, which is obviously more an issue of the industry than the company specifically - but given Image's history with female-centric titles...

I'm just curious what a new female-driven book would look like from Image -- would we end up with Wonder Woman parody? Of the books talked about as being solid quality examples from Image, Madman is so Ditko; Invincible is Silver Age Spider-Man and Justice League archetypes; Gødland is Kirby with more sex. There's a lot of nostalgia in those books, which is quite often a positive thing - they usually know when to critique the source material or look at it in new ways - but would Image be able to adopt a female character without somehow referencing its past, or pastiching someone like Wonder Woman or Power Girl?

Ugh, thoughts on this like molasses.
 
 
This Sunday
03:40 / 23.07.07
[W]ould Image be able to adopt a female character without somehow referencing its past, or pastiching someone like Wonder Woman or Power Girl?

About as likely as a seeing an American-made comicbook that does feature somewhere a JLA-riff that isn't, instead, a biographical or semi-biographical tale. It can happen, heck, two musicians have managed to produce anthology comics (Verotik and Spookshow International) without either element, but it's oddly rare.
 
 
yichihyon
04:57 / 25.07.07
I was a fan of Image until they got too greedy and kept it to the main 7 which narrowed down later. I think those comics with computerized coloring and art were great and the main selling point for me was they were getting Alan Moore back to writing comics with Neil Gaiman Frank Miller Dave Sim and Grant Morrison writing for them! If they only kept on going and made these people partners then Image would have been a major major force to be reckoned with in the comic industry. If they only consolidated other talent with the follow up companies with the likes of Frank Miller, John Byrne, Arthur Adams, Jim Starlin, and George Perez and so forth everyone would have been working for Image now and we would have an Image Sin City instead of Deathblow and other comics that were getting greedy for the fast buck.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply