Originally Posted by Ford
And then word comes today that Gaiman is writing a movie for MTV Films. Granted, it's a graphic novel adaptation, but the hypocracy can't be overlooked.
I assume you're referring to
MirrorMask? There is no hypocrisy here, because Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman have collaborated extensively in the past.
MirrorMask was a graphic series, and the duo decided to make it into a film (with full creative control). The release will be certainly be no blockbuster thing, and they're not compromising the story at all in favor of ticket sales - which is what Gaiman was criticizing.
Originally Posted by Ford
As for Frank Miller, I won't say much simply because I'm not a fan of his. But what was he smoking when he wrote "Robocop 3"?
Yes, Frank Miller is overrated. It seems his successes have been largely a result of when they were released, and not so much a result of his 'brilliance'. I find irony in the fact that he's best known for producing arguably the best Batman story to date, when he's butchering Batman as we speak. Go read one issue of
All-Star Batman and Robin, and I'm sure you'll agree.
Originally Posted by Ford
Again, I never spoke in absolutes. Some movie writers like to work on novels or comics, some comic writers like to work on novels or movies and some novelists like to work on comics or movies.
No, what you said was, "if a comic writer could make a living writing novels or movie screenplays over comics, he would," and that's an unfounded, blanket statement. There is just no evidence to support it, and it came off sounding as if comic books are just tiddly-winks for writers.
Originally Posted by Ford
Sometimes you get someone like Todd McFarlane who was able to take one of his creations to the big screen (Spawn). Personally, I think he's overrated too.
You're right, Todd McFarlane is a joke. He criticizes anyone who "sells out," according to him. The man doesn't even make comic books anymore. He makes action figures that don't sell.
Originally Posted by Ford
Again, you took it way too seriously. Breathe. Go type in "storyboard" and "comic book" into any search engine and you'll see a ton of people saying that they're similar, that some artists go back and forth between each and that comics can work as movie storyboards in some cases. I wasn't insulting comic books.
Yes, you were. You may not have meant harm, but by saying that comic books were no different than a pre-production device used for making films, you were insulting the medium. Your statement also seemed an uneducated one, and I wanted to set you straight. Too many people judge comic books without knowing what goes into the creative process of making them, which is just as respectable as any novel or film. Yes, comics and storyboards are similar in that they are still pictures drawn in little boxes to illustrate some sort of action, but the similarity ends there.
Originally Posted by Ford
I'll be the first to say that we should have kids reading comics in schools and not just classics. Reading Shakespeare doesn't really help a kid who is looking to be a writer as much as something contemporary could.
Agreed. The classics are still important in that they represent the very first types of stories that people write every day, but yes - no kid is encouraged to read or write when all they are
made to read is stuff they wouldn't willingly pick up otherwise.
Originally Posted by Ford
I stand by "adults holding on to their youth" statement for comics. The main intent of that statement was for the big name titles like "Superman" and "Batman" all the way to stuff like "G.I. Joe". Kids just don't buy that stuff, adults do.
Why associate comic books with youth, though? That's the problem I'm having. By that logic, you could say that anyone who grew up playing and watching baseball is "holding onto their youth" by watching a Mets game on the TV. But of course, nobody would say that. Why is watching baseball considered an acceptable adult activity, but reading comics is not? This is the kind of thing that begs to be changed, if only people will pick up a comic book and recognize that there's something much more substantial there than they probably realize.
Originally Posted by Ford
Your statements seem aimed at graphic novels, which are sort of like a more respectable version of a comic. The type you'd buy at a book store, not a comic shop.
No, I was talking about comic books and graphic novels just the same. Pick up an issue of
Powers (by Brian Bendis),
Conan (by Kurt Busiek), or
The Ultimates (by Mark Millar), and you'll see that the stories aren't just cheap kiddy flash anymore. And remember, not every graphic novel
began as a graphic novel.
Watchmen and
The Dark Knight Returns, two of the most powerful graphic stories ever produced, were first released as 24-page issues.