How Many of you Actually Read Comics???

[squeekness]

I dont, but since last week i've been hooked on the Watchmen graphic novel i got from the library. Im probably going to get myself The Killing Joke and The Long Halloween next.

Good luck trying to find Killing Joke, that thing is really hard to find unless you want to buy the best of Alan Moore compliation book from DC.

 

[thedeadite]

I unfortunatly havn't been able to buy much (if anything) lately. Though I do have a friend that has been lending me Invincible and Fables TPBs and also others that he picks up (all he buys are trades) that he thinks I might like. Like the first Fell tbp (which rules) and the Marvel Team-Up trade with the Invincible/Spidey story.

 

[Themanofbat]

Now I know you are wrong about this, especially on the examples you've given. You see, a graphic novel is actually an original story not available anywhere else. Arkham Asylum, JLA earth 2, Detective 27, God loves man kills, those are in actuality LEGITIMATE graphic novels.

The problem with many of your examples are that they contradict your definition. I'll give you 2 examples.

You list DKR, Watchmen, Marvels, Spider-man blue, Daredevil :mwof, and KC as graphic novels yet you say Phoniex endsong is a tpb. Now what do ALL these titles have in common?

They were all limited series (and one a maxi...still counts) so I ask, why do you regard all those 'great' books as graphic novels yet phoniex, which was a limited series like the rest, is a tpb?

Example the second....

You list Batman Year one as a graphic novel yet ultimate spider-man and new x-men are all listed as trades. So lets say, lets pick days of future past. Ok now what do days and YO have in common? Both were told in the original title, days in uncanny...YO in batman. So whats the difference?

Now the other problem with it is that ALL tpb's have a beggining, middle and end so that argument goes out the window.

And here where the idea of the GN becomes blurred. The idea still is out there that comcis are "for kids" so to sell movies like 300, BB and sin city the studios push to say "graphic novel" rather then comic book series just to sound more pretntious and "adult". Now this couples into the whole ignorance perpetuates ignorance so we get everyone calling DKR. watchmen etc graphic novels which is sad because instead of standing up and saying "no this is COMICS. They ARENT just 'kids stuff' and the medium has grown..see?" , which is what we should be doing, we get pretntious a holes putting down comics like batman yet praising books like YO which is just ******ed.

Here is something to think about when you hear everyone go on about the sin city and 300 graphic novles and how they are so much more intelligent then comic books....

How were these books originally published?

They all were original series, out of continuity that told a complete story without treading on the original source material.

Because Phoenix:Endsong is a storyline that is not self contained, and works off of the mainstream Universe tying directly into the Morrison run. Furthermore it's not a complex storyline written like a Novel.

Batman:Year One is entirely out of step with the comic series while your other examples are not.


They.aren't.written.like.novels. They are written like episodes. They are episodic. The other storylines are not, they are self contained. Episodic means that it's akin to a chapter in a book, and while the plot of the episode is resolved (Doc Ock goes off to jail), the over arching story remains. I.e. the chapter may end in a cliffhanger, may start a relationship, may introduce a character who will have an upcoming storyline. For example, Phoenix:Endsong ends with Jean going off to find her pieces in the white hot room....leaving a huge portion of the story unresolved.

Not really, certain work is better than other work. Anyone with a High School english course can tell you why trash novels are inherently worse than Charles Dickens no matter how they feel about his writing.


With a printing press. You also fail to understand that for a while people wouldn't print anthology comics. But some series, like Squadron Supreme, were obviously written for Graphic Novel format. And even God Loves, Man Kills, which you mention was originally intended for the mainstream title...but was removed due to disputes about whether it should be included. So, no, not every comic published outside of bound format is printed that way on purpose. Frank Miller calls both "Year One" and DKR graphic novels in his forewards. So that means his intention was to publish them in graphic novel format...no matter how they originally came out. The E-I-C of Marvel Comics refers to Squadron Supreme, a maxi, as a graphic novel.

Wrong, wrong, all wrong. All you've given is Alan Moore's complaint about Graphic Novels, who insists they should just be 'comic books'...he also insists that anyone else who uses a character he writes is a hack, but he likes to complain

...the official definition according to CGC is

Meaning, yes there is a problem defining them distinctly. But the fact is Graphic Novels can be previously printed in comic formate.

Try researching your rants next time you make them, kay

Sorry champ I know what I'm talking about here and even when you used your "reseach souces" they still contradicted stuff you'd said.



Really? thats funny because spider-man blue takes place during and between issues of amazing spider-man. Same with Marvels. Takes palce during the 60's stuff.



Once again, Marvels, SM.blue, DD: mwof, and infact pretty much all comics work works off of the mainstream universe. Also your claim of "not written like a complex novel"..neither were most of your examples. In fact the only real complex thing on that list was Watchmen.



So anyone who does a fill in story means they made a graphic novel? because (other then the fact that YO was planned to be in the reguler batman title) thats what it was...4 fill in issues.



Your stuck on this novels comparison and forget the fact that comics are episodic. Also once again, comics aren't written like novels and I don't know where your getting this idea from. Have you picked up anything reprinted from an ongoing lately? You can't tell it's reprinted fro ma serialized comic book because they are written as 6 issue arcs as a means to make it easier to turn into a graphic novle/tpb.



No because it's all a matter of opinion. Someone might think Phionex warsong is on par with DKR or other "great" comics work. Simlier as how someone might like trashy romance novels over Dickens. Just because it has a 'name' writter on it dosent mean it's great. Here is an example...Stephan King. He was and is still regarded as a "trash" writer even thoguh he has made millions, is a consistant on bestseller lists and is a hosehold name. Similer with Shakespeare. If he was alive and writing today, he wouldn't be writing "great works" like he is known for.



Funny you go on about how people wouldnt print anthology comics yet thats exactly where Sin City got its start. Dark Horse Presents. An anthology comic. Squadron Supreme was written as a maxi serise pal not "for a gn". So does that mean the original Warlord comic is a gn? The simple fact is, yet you refuse to realize or admit, is that ANY limited series can be reprinted and labled a 'graphic novel'. Als oregardless of where they originally wanted to print GLMK it was stillr eleased as an original graphic novel from marvel comics and in fact was one of theyre first.

LMAO and whats wrong with agreeing with Alan Moore? The man has a point and he's a genius whos name on a cover, by your definitons, makes Watchmen a GN and not a limited comic series.

Having been involved with comics (as a purchaser for 32 years, and as retailer for 12 years), Graphic Novels have always been "new material" while "Trade Paper Backs" are reprinted material, regardless of the source.

But frankly, ShadowBoxing likes to think he's always right, so I won't argue with what he wants to think as a GN vs a TPB.

I find that most of the "outstanding" TPB's (or collected reprinted material, such as DKR and Watchmen) get "Graphic Novel" treatment, as if the term trade paperback is somehow insulting of its content.

Having collected the original 12 issues, the Watchmen TPB is what it is... a trade paperback. Same as any other reprinted material.

It's easily definable, if people get lower their snooty noses once in a while.

 

[PhotoJones]

I read a lot of comics. A lot.

 

[skorponok]

I used to read a few titles consistently.

However in the past year and a couple months, I believe the only comic I have bought was the Daredevil issue where Matt and Foggy were reunited.

 

[Brendan]

I'm not the biggest comic book geek out there but there still are a number of them that I read still.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Sorry champ I know what I'm talking about here and even when you used your "reseach souces" they still contradicted stuff you'd said.

No, they all said previously printed comics could be graphic novels. Try reading them again.

Really? thats funny because spider-man blue takes place during and between issues of amazing spider-man. Same with Marvels. Takes palce during the 60's stuff.

All those stories are written 'like' novels. They have complex storylines, an guess what, Marvel comics sells them as graphic novels not as tradepaperbacks.

Once again, Marvels, SM.blue, DD: mwof, and infact pretty much all comics work works off of the mainstream universe. Also your claim of "not written like a complex novel"..neither were most of your examples. In fact the only real complex thing on that list was Watchmen.

No, no, that's wrong. There are other comics written in novel format that are complex...not just Watchmen. Watchmen is very complex, doesn't mean everything below it is not complex at all

So anyone who does a fill in story means they made a graphic novel? because (other then the fact that YO was planned to be in the reguler batman title) thats what it was...4 fill in issues.

In his own goddamn introduction Frank Miller refers to the story you're about to read as "a graphic novel". It's not the same thing as comic book. A writer can write something which he intends to be bound in graphic novel format.

Your stuck on this novels comparison and forget the fact that comics are episodic. Also once again, comics aren't written like novels and I don't know where your getting this idea from. Have you picked up anything reprinted from an ongoing lately? You can't tell it's reprinted fro ma serialized comic book because they are written as 6 issue arcs as a means to make it easier to turn into a graphic novle/tpb.

The 6 issue arc doesn't end with everyone dying and the book finishing up completely. It usually, almost always ends with some carryover plotline...or have you been reading comics lately. I guess not.

No because it's all a matter of opinion. Someone might think Phionex warsong is on par with DKR or other "great" comics work. Simlier as how someone might like trashy romance novels over Dickens. Just because it has a 'name' writter on it dosent mean it's great. Here is an example...Stephan King. He was and is still regarded as a "trash" writer even thoguh he has made millions, is a consistant on bestseller lists and is a hosehold name. Similer with Shakespeare. If he was alive and writing today, he wouldn't be writing "great works" like he is known for.

No actually, much like your bad spelling...bad writing is easy to spot.

Funny you go on about how people wouldnt print anthology comics yet thats exactly where Sin City got its start. Dark Horse Presents. An anthology comic. Squadron Supreme was written as a maxi serise pal not "for a gn".

According to the introduction the writer he wrote it in graphic novel format (SS). Just like Transformers: The Movie was written to be a complete movie despite the fact it's been divided up into five 20 minute episodes

So does that mean the original Warlord comic is a gn?

Could be...I've never read it.

The simple fact is, yet you refuse to realize or admit, is that ANY limited series can be reprinted and labled a 'graphic novel'.

No, it's dependent on what the company considers it's graphic novel worthy works. Not just any work gets 'graphic novel' treatment.

Als oregardless of where they originally wanted to print GLMK it was stillr eleased as an original graphic novel from marvel comics and in fact was one of theyre first.

You're the one who brought up writer intention. You see the reason YO, Sin City, Watchmen and all those others are printed in 'comic' format first was to sell them. Because it's harder to sell something, especially back then, in graphic novel format first. You might be able to get away with it today if you are a big name...but not back then. By your logic 'The first appearance of the New Mutants" and "the Death of Captain Marvel" are graphic novels too...when we know they were just oversized comics. And yes, in answer to your next question, they were printed just.like.God Loves Man Kills.

(They were in a book called MCGN, that had issues and was released periodically.)

LMAO and whats wrong with agreeing with Alan Moore? The man has a point and he's a genius whos name on a cover, by your definitons, makes Watchmen a GN and not a limited comic series.

He also says things like "nothing anyone writes is a graphic novel" because he has a cronically bad attitude and for some reason just wants to alienate the world around him. He is a genius, however in his mind he is the only genius.

I hope you also realize TPB and GN are industry terms, not "yourowngoddamn" terms. Meaning the industry, and not you or Alan Moore, have decided the definition of the two. And the definition is not "God Loves, Man Kills", "Death of Captain Marvel", "New Mutants magazine", "Arkham Asylum" and the few other books we've printed in large comic format only. Remember, the intention behind printing GN material in comics is money...it has nothing to do with the work itself. DKR was only printed as a comic because it wouldn't have sold otherwise. And remember it's a comic book distributer you are selling through...not a novel publisher.

In addition, you might also note that TPBs rarely, if ever, have introductions (That aren't just introducing the story up to that point) unless they are the first few issues or something particularly famous. This is because they are TPBs and not GN. The introduction by the author, or by another should indicate to you this comic is meant to be digested like a novel.

And also Graphic Novels sometimes, but not always, have specific 'Graphic Novel' call numbers on the back of them.

the term Graphic-Novel has most typically been referred to as a long-form comic book, i.e. the comic book analogue to a prose novel or novella. It has typically applied to works, which were previously published in a serial or periodical comic book format, or to comic book works, which had been written specifically to be published in a book type format.

By the way. You're definition would include this:

But not this:

 

[Logan's Lady]

Yes........ yes I do read comics

 

[Bastila]

I read comics, only X-men ones though and also graphic novels.

 

[Brick]

Living in the uk i cant get all the comic needs i want.The only books i can get are the more famous graphic novels

 

[Bastila]

Living in the uk i cant get all the comic needs i want.The only books i can get are the more famous graphic novels

I only know one shop in London which does them lol I have to travel there.

 

[Brick]

The only good one near me is an hour and a half away in Reading.I really want to get Batman:The Long Halloween and Arkham Asylum but they are not released in the uk and i hate to import

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The only good one near me is an hour and a half away in Reading.I really want to get Batman:The Long Halloween and Arkham Asylum but they are not released in the uk and i hate to import

That's ironic considering the writer is from the UK.

 

[Hack and Slash]

I do read comics, especially the good ones

 

[K.B.]

Having been involved with comics (as a purchaser for 32 years, and as retailer for 12 years), Graphic Novels have always been "new material" while "Trade Paper Backs" are reprinted material, regardless of the source.

But frankly, ShadowBoxing likes to think he's always right, so I won't argue with what he wants to think as a GN vs a TPB.

I find that most of the "outstanding" TPB's (or collected reprinted material, such as DKR and Watchmen) get "Graphic Novel" treatment, as if the term trade paperback is somehow insulting of its content.

Having collected the original 12 issues, the Watchmen TPB is what it is... a trade paperback. Same as any other reprinted material.

It's easily definable, if people get lower their snooty noses once in a while.

Good to know I'm not the only one here that knows proper definitions and history of comics

Once again Shadowboxing, GN is a term used to make comics somehow seem more highbrow and "inteligent' because there is still a stigma that comics are 'kids stuff'.

No, no, that's wrong. There are other comics written in novel format that are complex...not just Watchmen. Watchmen is very complex, doesn't mean everything below it is not complex at all

Yeah Grant Morissons New X-Men was a very complex book and is basically a thousand page comic. Has a beggining, middle and end yet you wouldn't call that a gn, but a trade, yet something with a simple story like Spider-man blue is somehow a gn?

The 6 issue arc doesn't end with everyone dying and the book finishing up completely. It usually, almost always ends with some carryover plotline...or have you been reading comics lately. I guess not.

And every limited series does end with everyone dying and the book finishing up completly? Fact, one of the main problems fans have with the ult. spider-man and ult. x-men titles is that they are clearly written in 6 issues with lack of any 'carryover' plotlines and were very formulaic. (Of course this has changed in ult. x-men since Kirkman took over)

No actually, much like your bad spelling...bad writing is easy to spot.

So your basically saying everyone shares the same opinion on writers..wow thats just a ******ed way of thinking. Do some research like you tell everyone and you would see that King was and in some circles still conisdered a 'trash' writer regardless of how much critical and finacial success he has. Your claim of "bad writing is easy to spot"...well how do you explain people who don't like Miller or Moores books yet love someone like Chuck Austin or Bendis or anyother writer. People like what they like regardless.

According to the introduction the writer he wrote it in graphic novel format (SS). Just like Transformers: The Movie was written to be a complete movie despite the fact it's been divided up into five 20 minute episodes

Ok and you realize that every movie can be split up into different parts right? Also transformers the movie was released into theaters back in the day and then was recycled into the mini seires as seen on tv.

You're the one who brought up writer intention. You see the reason YO, Sin City, Watchmen and all those others are printed in 'comic' format first was to sell them. Because it's harder to sell something, especially back then, in graphic novel format first. You might be able to get away with it today if you are a big name...but not back then. By your logic 'The first appearance of the New Mutants" and "the Death of Captain Marvel" are graphic novels too...when we know they were just oversized comics. And yes, in answer to your next question, they were printed just.like.God Loves Man Kills.

(They were in a book called MCGN, that had issues and was released periodically.)

Oh it was? Thats funny because it was around the same time all these books were being released that the big 2 realized there was a market for it hence the NM and death of captain marvel and GLMK and a few spidey books as well as Arkham Asylum etc from DC. It was seen as a new and different market and also as a way to reach the direct market which was also new back in the 80's. And your wrong becuase the first new mutants book and death of capt. marvel were graphic novles and were released and promted as such. Oversized comics were called treasury editions (such as superman vs spider-man) and were completly different in size then your supposed "oversized" NM/ death of Capt. Marvel books. I mean, hell, look at your fact you back it up with..I'm assuming MCGN would stand for Marvel Comics Graphic Novles. Yet even if they were published in a book with the words graphic novel on it you still say they werent...hmmmm.. interesting.

DKR was only printed as a comic because it wouldn't have sold otherwise.

Wow...so I guess all those DKR tpb's that get sold on a daily basis are just a figmint of my imagination.

Ok and how about this one...you seem to have some asinine concept of a hireachy to limited series and which ones are considered gn and which ones are tpb's so where does that leave one shot comics? Why is Scott Morse's 'batman roomfull of strangers' not conisdered a gn on par with DKR? It's just as good if not better. And what about Identity Crisis? Why is that not considered a gn? It had a beggining, middle and end. I'l leven give you an easy one...why is Dark Knight Strikes Again a limited series and not considered a gn? It's the sequel to DKR and both were released as minis.


But then again I don't expect you t oknow any of this...your the same guy who thinks that the 90's werent about being 'dark' and that Lifeld wasn't to blame for all the gun/pouches/armour/mullets etc look of characters and that Liefeld didnt have any impact on the industy.

(Cause you know...leaving the safety of the big 2 and millions of dollers to venture off and make your own creator owned independant publishing company with 6 other of the industys top talent made no impact at all. )

 

[Themanofbat]

I find it laughable that somebody doesn't consider the "Death of Captain MArvel" a graphic novel when it was published as such...

 

[Diamondhead]

Most of the people that post in here, I never run into in any of the various comic forums, or really, any other forums for that matter. Makes me wonder, if a lot of the people who frequent the Community Forum actually read comics.

I have comics that are coming out of my ears.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I find it laughable that somebody doesn't consider the "Death of Captain MArvel" a graphic novel when it was published as such...

It was considered to be Marvel's first Graphic Novel, as far as I recall, and the Wiki says.
As I recall that was when they made a big deal about how "Yo! This ain't just a "comicbook". This a Graphic NOVEL, dawgz!"




It is amusing though as a 36 year old, seeing a bunch of youngsters talking with authority about stuff that "happened", 'cause they read it in a book, when, I was THERE, watching what happened. lol

 

[ShadowBoxing]

But then again I don't expect you t oknow any of this...your the same guy who thinks that the 90's werent about being 'dark' and that Lifeld wasn't to blame for all the gun/pouches/armour/mullets etc look of characters and that Liefeld didnt have any impact on the industy.

They aren't. Liefield didn't create those things, nor did he have influence on the comic industry. He doesn't come into the office and go "hey guys, I gots an idea, let's add pouches to everything". Honestly, how dumb are you???

Comics are written for COMIC READERS. If there is a market for it, and the market demands it, it gets made. The 80s was about being dark. You can look at the f***ing storylines. "Weapon X", "Punisher", "Inferno", "Dark Phoenix Saga", "DKR", "Year One", "Mutant Massacre", "Death of Elektra", "Judas Contract".

The 90s was about being X-Treme. "X-Force", "X-Tinction Agenda", "Jean Paul "knives and armor" Valley", "Cyborg, Armor, and hyper cool Superman", "Superman Electric Blue", "X-cutioner's Song", "New and Improved blonde Spider-Man". But all, those things come from the market, and are milked until fans want something different.

Liefield doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, he is a product of it. Prolific writers like Moore, Millar, Bendis, Miller, and Lee have been trend setters. Not crappy artists like Liefield and others.

If you think so you have your head waaaayyyy up your ass.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I find it laughable that somebody doesn't consider the "Death of Captain MArvel" a graphic novel when it was published as such...

No, you missed the point. He said Graphic Novels were content that weren't written in comic book form. Those were. They were part of a series. "Death of Captain Marvel" wasn't Marvel's first graphic novel, it was a comic in a series called "Marvel Comics Graphic Novel" (there were other squarebound books, but not many, before that). It was issue 1 of that series.

when it was published as such...

You mean just like when Watchmen and DKR were published by DC as graphic novels. You point that they appeared elsewhere first is moot.

Transformers:Cybertron, which you convienently sidestepped, and a few Batman movie adaptations were printed in the same format as "DoCM" as stand alone one-shots. But according to you, even though "Transformers: Cybertron" is marketed as a tradepaperback by IDW, it must be a Graphic Novel because it's content appears in book form and no where else...

They reprint "DoCM" outside of it's series now in it's own editions, but originally it was found in a comic book series. Therefore, by your logic, it's reprint cannot be a graphic novel...because it appeared in a series first.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Liefield didn't create those things, nor did he have influence on the comic industry.

Stupidest thing I've seen you say in a while.

At the time, Spielberg was talking about making his concepts into a movie, because he was SO "hip, now and exciting to the kids"....before everyone saw the emperor had no clothes.

People were b****ing about him, especially the cranky old-timers, but to say he had "no" influence on the comic industry?! LOL

Just solely for his ROLE in Creator's Rights with Image, *b00m*, he had AN influence.

Some site says:

• 'X-Force' #1 held the record for the best selling comic book of all time.
  He created the best selling independent comic book, 'Youngblood' #1.
  Although his artwork is highly criticized, it became the most influential art style of the 1990s.
  Has had several of his comic book properties optioned by movie studios.
  Despite the level of negative criticism, he still has a legion of diehard fans.

Some dude says:

I feel that Rob Liefeld is the closest thing in comics to King Kirby In terms of creation and in the energy in his artwork.He started image comics who revoulutionized printing and coloring and paper grades.On top of that he introduced a whole generation of great artist to comics and animation.Jeff Matsuda''the batman" BEN 10.CHAP YAEP on he man. The liefeld influence will be felt for the rest of our lives

It's not wildly inaccurate to say he had AN influence on comics.
It IS however, wildly inaccurate to say that he had NO influence on comics.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Good to know I'm not the only one here that knows proper definitions and history of comics

Once again Shadowboxing, GN is a term used to make comics somehow seem more highbrow and "inteligent' because there is still a stigma that comics are 'kids stuff'.

Yeah, that's part of it. But the other part is I provided OFFICIAL DEFINITIONS THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT YOUR OWN. Meaning yours is WRONG.

This isn't a debate. You don't get to go "Marvel and DC call it a graphic novel, but it isn't really a graphic novel"

Talk about trying to sound "elitist" and "intelligent". Wow

 

[K.B.]

LMAO ok pal..says the man who disregards the death of captain marvel being a graphic novel when it was labeled as such lol what are you gonna try and say next? Supeman was the first big death in comics?

No, you missed the point. He said Graphic Novels were content that weren't written in comic book form. Those were. They were part of a series. "Death of Captain Marvel" wasn't Marvel's first graphic novel, it was a comic in a series called "Marvel Comics Graphic Novel" (there were other squarebound books, but not many, before that). It was issue 1 of that series.

No I said gn's were original content not printed anywhere else while tpb's were nothing more then reprinted material..maybe actually READ what people post. I also like how you say it wasn't a graphic novel and it wasnt marvels first yet you go on to say it was published with the words graphic novel in the title and is even labeled with a 1 on the cover.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

lol, fighting over comicbook semantics is hilarious.
I love it.
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
lol

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Stupidest thing I've seen you say in a while.

X-Force number 1....not sure where you found that.

Anyway, X-Men #1 hit the stands in 1991 and sold over seven million copies to become the best-selling comic book of all time.

I think whoever wrote that meant X-Men #1. And Jim Lee was wildly influential. No argument against him. Most artists, Liefield included, copied his work for quite some time. I think that's what your missing about MacFarlane and Liefield. They didn't "influence" the medium so much as were a product of it.

Jim Lee drew exciting, overly dramatic, big, buff, X-Treme characters...and people fell in love with this. This openned up the doors for others to do that stuff as well.