Page 34 of 38 < 1 2 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >
Topic Options
#582140 - 01/11/11 02:50 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Charles Reece]
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
I don't think that advances are really the issue as far as mainstream comics are concerned. Yes, the amount of working capital required by the publisher would increase, but the carrying cost on that working capital (effectively the interest paid/lost for having borrowed/not invested the cash advanced to the creators)is not going to be enough to make or break most projects (there would be some savings to offset that, one cover instead of six for example). (I think there was some talk on some blog sites within the last couple of years about what a typical page rates for mainstream comics were, but I can't find it, if someone has a link, I'd be able to scale the size of the cost of advances).

There are probably a few reasons that the big two haven't switched to an OGN vs. serialization model (although DC has/is dabbling with it), but I don't think fronting royalties is one of the major ones.

Top
#582153 - 01/11/11 03:20 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Charles Reece]
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece
Just so it's clear: What I wish for is the ability to read a work the way I like to and for creators to be able to distribute their work the way they want to.


Yep.

Top
#582157 - 01/11/11 04:03 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Dean R Milburn]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7086
And Bunge never provided an example of a novelist who would like to serialize their novels as they're writing them.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#582217 - 01/12/11 12:25 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#582218 - 01/12/11 12:47 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
And Bunge never provided an example of a novelist who would like to serialize their novels as they're writing them.


Uh, the guy who claimed that people couldn't be better writers than artists and vice versa, defended that claim, then denied he made that claim before going on to make that claim again...is calling me out? The guy who pretty clearly implied that writers who can't draw should fuck off and die because they only want to do "movies" instead of comics...is calling me out?

And I said that people in the book industry wish they had serialized formats for their work and even offered up a specific writer who had talked about that.

Allen, you don't know much about comics, you know less about economics and business and you don't care about the viability of comics as either an artform or an industry.

Mike

Top
#582237 - 01/12/11 04:17 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7086
I didn't claim that people couldn't be better at writing or drawing. That's your illiterate take. I said the point is irrelevant.

You did name a "specific writer," yes, but you didn't provide a specific link where he talks about that.

And your last paragraph is all you really care about: casting insults, rather than addressing the topic at hand.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#582243 - 01/12/11 06:11 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
I didn't claim that people couldn't be better at writing or drawing. That's your illiterate take. I said the point is irrelevant.


No, Allen. You've made it clear, even if you didn't intend it, that you have a childlike view of the creative process. You think creators are like Ultra-Boy from the Legion of Super-Heroes and can just shift their magical talent from one thing to the other. The reason that's clear is because you didn't start calling the point irrelevent until you got caught subscribing to such a sub-moronic belief.

And just because you apparently re-write your own history as you go along, here's what you said in response to my contention that there are writers who can't draw and artist who can't write, before you decided to change your story.

1. "That is a false standard which was, once again, created by the trademark servicing publishers who required a more generic "house style.""

2. "Do you really want to get into Mike Hoffman's "incomplete creator" argument? That's always good for a laugh."

3. "All people with the will to do it can draw pictures and write text."

4. "I know what you're talking about — an arbitrary "standard" of art."

You did not call, classify, imply or in any way communicate the idea that you thought my contention was irrevelent. You engaged with it and tried to disprove it, failing most pathetically.

So, you don't know much about comics, less about economics or business, you don't care about the viability of comics as an artform or an industry, and you're a stupid liar whose head remains up his own ass.

Mike

Top
#582270 - 01/13/11 08:18 AM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7086
Originally Posted By: MBunge
No, Allen. You've made it clear, even if you didn't intend it

That I didn't "intend it" must be why you can't provide a quote where I intended it.



Originally Posted By: MBunge
1. "That is a false standard which was, once again, created by the trademark servicing publishers who required a more generic "house style.""

Yes. Bullpens and sweathsops distributed the work, not based on anyone's relative skills, but on how quickly they could pump out the product. One episode would be drawn by one person, the next drawn by someone who maybe didn't even see what the first guy had done and come up with a totally different take. The houses that actually did get their act together, had certain artists — Dan DeCarlo at Archie, famously — instruct other artists in how to draw to the expected standard.



Originally Posted By: MBunge
2. "Do you really want to get into Mike Hoffman's "incomplete creator" argument? That's always good for a laugh."

Well, it is. Do you even know what it is? You said you didn't. And did I say I subscribed to it? So... what's your point here? Looks like you don't have one.


Originally Posted By: MBunge
3. "All people with the will to do it can draw pictures and write text."

This is true.


Originally Posted By: MBunge
4. "I know what you're talking about — an arbitrary "standard" of art."

Exactly. There are very few comics that were made better by putting the work into more hands. Some degree of artistic expression was lost through the exchange.


Originally Posted By: MBunge
You did not call, classify, imply or in any way communicate the idea that you thought my contention was irrevelent.

Calling your standard "arbitrary" didn't clue you in at all?


Originally Posted By: MBunge
So, you don't know much about comics, less about economics or business, you don't care about the viability of comics as an artform or an industry, and you're a stupid liar whose head remains up his own ass.

Once again, this is all you have: empty insults. And erectile dysfunction, perhaps?
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
— Bob Kane

Top
#582288 - 01/13/11 10:56 AM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Calling your standard "arbitrary" didn't clue you in at all?


Since that's the only part of your response that actually deals with the point at issue, let's see if I can cram some knowledge up your ass.

Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>
— ar·bi·trari·ly \&#716;är-b&#601;-&#712;trer-&#601;-l&#275;, -&#712;tre-r&#601;-\ adverb
— ar·bi·trar·i·ness \&#712;är-b&#601;-&#716;trer-&#275;-n&#601;s, -&#716;tre-r&#275;-\ noun


Definition of IRRELEVANT
: not relevant : inapplicable <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>
— ir·rel·e·vant·ly adverb
See irrelevant defined for English-language learners »
Examples of IRRELEVANT
His comment is completely irrelevant.
<irrelevant questions that merely disrupted the classroom lesson>


Those two words do not mean the same thing and their individual meanings are not mutually inclusive. If you thought they were interchangable, you're even dumber than I thought.

And of course, your own actions demonstrate that you didn't think my contention was irrelevant because you tried, and miserably failed, to dispute it. You only ran and hid behind the irrelevancy thing because you lost the argument yet can't admit it to yourself because that would call into question your amateur bullshit philosophies about comics.

You don't know much about comics, less about economics and business, you don't care about the viability of comics as an artform or an industry, you're a stupid liar with your head up your ass...and you wallow it a pit of self-justifying self-deception.

Oh, and you're a whiny little baby who thinks nothing of speaking harshly about others but cries helpless tears when someone addresses you crossly.

Mike

Top
#582289 - 01/13/11 11:00 AM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Charles Reece]
Stephen R Bissette Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/98
Posts: 939
Loc: wilmington, VT USA
Allen, I've worked in the book industry as a writer for years now, working with regional, national, and international deals and venues. I have many, many friends who still do, too, and many friends who are published vet novelists and authors who cannot place books right now, despite their track records. I have a number of works in bookstores now, not counting the SWAMP THING reprint hardcovers; if I must list those, I will. I've even got books in remainder bins. I know the market, and the industries I speak of; and I'm not even considering the Direct Market a viable part of this equation any longer.

You act as if it's easy or something. "Just do this!"

It isn't, and it's gotten harder in the past four-five years.

Yes, advances still exist, the model still applies, but it's become harder and harder to (a) find publishers who want a project, (b) shop proposals (with corporate consolidation of publishers under single corporate umbrellas, where agents used to be able to shop to multiple venues they now find, tops, five or six), (c) negotiate advances that will cover one year of work, much less the two-to-eleven years most quality graphic novels take to complete.

Vet authors are being offered advances they pass up because they can't survive on such meager funds, much less sustain work on a project for more than six months on the advances publishers are offering. Graphic novels are even harder to sustain; and whatever you THINK advances may be for single authors, divide those further for the collaborative teams usually required for graphic novels (I'm including colorists, letterers, etc., and digital production, as a cost or share in such ventures, as one must).

You're talking with apparent authority about something I'm not gleaning much experience or working knowledge of in your posts. That's not meant as an insult; I'm just trying to impart what I know first-hand and second-hand, as a published writer, illustrator, artist, and cartoonist who's negotiated many a contract and contributed to and/or written many a book (as in "in your bookstore" books, not Direct Market titles).

Top
Page 34 of 38 < 1 2 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley