|
|
|
|
|
|
The Black Hole
2008-12-01 19:45:52
|  |
The period between Thanksgiving and New Year's is called the "Black Hole" in the industry, because it's the period in which verybody's got so many other things vying for their time and attention that getting comics finished and off to the printer slows to a crawl. It's the worst time of the year for sending books out.
And right now, I'm stuck in the middle of it. Which means that posting is going to continue to be sparse for the next couple of days, until and assuming I can get out from under.
In the meantime, I've added a new icon to our blog lexicon, to replace or be used in addition to Mister Fish. It's the image to the left, of one of Marvel's most bizarre marketing products, the Marvel toilet paper featuring a new, original story. When you see this image, you can assume that I'm off "making comics" and that I'll be back here just as soon as I can.
I was hoping to make my next post, the 500th anniversary post, a double-sized spectacular, but right now I'd setle for just having a moment to pound out the usual pap. I'd stick a reprint in if I didn't think it'd have negative consequences down the line.
Anyway--more later.
Tom B
|
My Friend Stan
2008-11-21 17:43:37
| |
A crazy thing happened to me the other day.
I was checking in at my Facebook page (Yes, I have a Facebook page. Shut up.), making my way through the friend requests that had stacked up since the last time I was over there. And I came to one and stopped short.
Stan Lee.
Stan Lee wanted to be my friend.
This wasn’t me reaching out to Stan, or to POW! Entertainment. This was The Man, coming to my virtual doorstep, extending his hand in friendship.
There is still something strange and wonderful about the fact that Stan Lee knows who I am. I remember how much it startled me the first time I bumped into him at a convention panel and he immediately greeted my by name, though we hadn’t seen one another in months, and even then hadn’t spent a lot of time in each others’ presence.
This is not the real world. In the real world, Stan Lee should not know who I am.
Anyway, this all gives me an excuse to mention a little tome Jim McLaughlin and the good people at the Hero Initiative have just released. It’s a collection of all of Stan’s Soapbox columns from the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, back in the days when Stan WAS Marvel Comics, and when he set the standard for interacting with the audience and raising the bar on what a comic book could be. It’s also chock-a-block full of background information on the era, so a reader can better understand the context of what Stan is talking about (outside of promoting Marvel titles, something we can all understand.) It also contains a bevy of guest essays from prominent members of the creative community, talking about their favorite Soapboxes and how Stan’s musings impacted on them. It’s a really nice compendium, and the best part is that the proceeds help to fund the Hero Initiative’s ongoing mission to help comic creators who’ve fallen on hard times. It’s well worth a look.
Do you think Stan would like to play a game of Word Twist?
More later.
Tom B
|
Tom Brevoort - New and Improved
2008-11-20 17:12:54
| |
There’s very little that AMAZING SPIDER-MAN writer Marc Guggenheim likes more than a plug for his ABC television series Eli Stone, now in its second season. And there are very few lengths he won’t go to in order to get one.
This is how, last season, Natasha Henstridge wound up taking an important and plot-crucial phone call from “Tom Brevoort at Chaykin Industries." But this year, Marc topped himself—and all, I’d like to think, for the chance to be mentioned on this blog.
Two weeks ago, actor Matt Reidy was Tom Brevoort. Or, should I say, Tom Breevort (Marc had some line about them deliberately changing the spelling in order to get the name past their legal department, but I know he just can’t spell it just like everybody else.) And while he possesses a distinctive lack of proud, distinguished facial hair, Matt carried the torch proudly. Some might say he stole the show (some in my family, at least.)
Marc Guggenheim’s Eli Stone. Tuesdays at 10:00 on ABC. This is not a Marvel-sponsored event.
More later.
Tom B
|
The Pryde Scale
2008-11-19 09:48:26
I received the following e-mail recently, and even though I don't agree with all of it (you can't build a formula for the passage of time in the Marvel Universe backwards--it only works if you build it forwards) I thought it was worth sharing and opening up to the rest of the world. Plus, this makes for an easy blog entry for the day.
Fun With Character Aging In The Marvel Universe
or
'The Pryde Scale'
by Edward Gore, AKA: WinterRose
I was catching up on Uncanny X-Men today, hoping Ed Brubaker had meant when Sam Guthrie said he was 21 years old in a bar that he'd meant he was OVER 21. Yeah, I'm persnickety about The New Mutants and always have been. When the character debuted in 1982 in the Graphic Novel 'The New Mutants', he was 16 years old and working in a coal mine. The character of Kitty Pryde was introduced in 1980, and was described at the time as being 13 and a half. She was also described as being 14 in 1983 when The New Mutants got their own ongoing title. So far this is all stuff you already know. I WILL get to the point.
My own take on it was that if Kitty Pryde was 21 years old at the time of her alleged termination (Yeah, we'll see how long THAT lasts.), then she's taken 28 reader years to age 8 character years. Breaking that down, (and ignoring the fact that there's been a Christmas issue every year in Marvel Comics since 1980), that would mean she's aged one character year for every 3.5 reader years. As well, everyone who was IN the X-Books since then should have aged at least 8 years since Kitty Pryde was introduced in 1980. I'm calling it 'The Pryde Scale' for easy future reference.
THE PRYDE SCALE
1 Character Year = 3.5 Reader Years
For Easy Reference:
Pryde Age / Reader Year
13 / 1980
14 / 1983 & 1/2
15 / 1987
16 / 1990 & 1/2 (Legal Adult, UK)
17 / 1994
18 / 1997 & 1/2 (Legal Adult, US)
19 / 2001
20 / 2004 & 1/2
21 / 2008 (Status: Unknown. Presumed Dead)
(Note: This could also be reasoned out to some degree with the aging of Katie Power from Power Pack, who debuted in 1984 at 10 years old, and as of 2007 was 17 in 'The Loners'. Her rate of age breaks down to 1 year per 3.2 reader years.)
28 reader years. With a Christmas issue every year. I don't care how ya slice it, that's a lot of Chaunukkah candles. But we'll forgive this. If she'd aged a year for every reader year, that would have made Joss Whedon's favorite little Shadowcat a whole 41 years old. Dem mutants do be agin' slow, Miss Daisy. Might as well be walkin'.
As Kitty Pryde is/was at least 21 nowadays, Sam Guthrie should be at least 23. Here's a note for Peter David as well. Rahne Sinclair is old enough to have a beer now. Kitty was serving alcohol in Chicago in MekaniX (2002-2003), which you have to be at least 18 by law in Illinois to do. On the Pryde Scale, Kitty was 19 years old then. Kitty was only a year older than Rahne, who was 13 back in 1983. So if Kitty was/is 21 when she caught the big bullet train out, then Rahne should be 20 years old.
One also hopes that when Kitty was sleeping around with Pete Wisdom back in her time with Excalibur that he waited to do that with her til after about the middle of 1997. Unless of course Pete Wisdom was having relations with a minor. Of course, the Pryde & Wisdom mini happened in late 1996, and Kitty was talking about how it was likely that her mom might shoot Pete on sight when she introduced the chain smoking cradle-robber to her family. Lucky for him the age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.
Let's take this a step further shall we? Since I'm having fun at Marvel's chronological expense. Emma Frost has gone on record as saying that she's 27 back in Grant Morrison's 'New X-Men' in 2003. On the Pryde scale, this would mean mean she's 29 going on 30 today. This also means that back in 1980, when she took on the Phoenix masquerading as Jean Gray in her Phoenix Saga debut, she was a whole 21 years old.
This would make Emma a mere 22 years old when she kidnapped Kitty, The New Mutants and took in Firestar in the early 80's. She was also already Headmistress of the Massachussetts Academy (1985). Barely 6 years older than both Angelica Jones and Sam Guthrie who were supposed to have been of the same age then. (See: Firestar: limited series)
Also, Cyclops said he was 25 back in X-Men #51 (1996). Whee! More dates to work with! Kitty was 17 then. (Bad Wisdom! Hot Knife Hands off the Loli!) Meaning Scott was ALSO 21 like Emma was in 1980 when Kitty was 13. How nice. He and Emma are the same age!
And of course, what age rant would be complete without poking a little fun at Franklin Richards? Incomplete! That's what! Franklin appears ALLLL the way back in 1968. And was not named until 1970 according to his wiki page. Okiedokie. Let's see what his proper age is on the Pryde scale. Little Franklin has been around for 40 years! 40 / 3.5 = 11.4. So he should be eleven & a half on the Pryde Scale. So... Franklin's depiction as a little boy all this time really isn't really all that off the mark if his aging is consistent with that of Kitty Pryde.
What other characters' ages could be figured out on the Pryde Scale then? In X-Men (v2) #20, Hank McCoy was apparently angsting about turning 30 years old in the reader year, 1993. That makes him 27 all the way back in 1980, which makes him 34 now. But he was introduced all the way back in 1963 with Scott. Let's figure a little more...
2008 - 1963 = 45 reader years.
45 / 3.5 = 12 Character Years
Current Age = 34 - 12 = Introductory Age of 22 in 1963.
And if Scott is 5 years younger than Hank now (29 going on 30 with Emma) that means Slim was 17 all the way back in 1963 when Jean was wearing poodle skirts and Cyclops had all the physique of a wire hanger. FUN!
Yeah. I suppose I'm easily amused. And I admit that I have way too much time on my hands. Character aging is an old bone I gnaw on from time to time, and being a Kitty Fan, with dates where they've mentioned her age from time to time, it's something to practice my geek-fu on. I hope this helps. Or at least finds you well.
-WinterRose
More later.
Tom B
Addicted to Comics
2008-11-18 17:41:56
There’s no other way to put it; I am addicted to comics.
I spent the first half of last week locked in a big ol’ room for between eight and ten hours at a stretch, pounding out the future of the Marvel Universe. This all sounds like fun, but it’s also a pressure cooker situation, especially when you have so many strongly opinionated people arguing the minutia of whether Brother Voodoo’s name sounds dated and hokey, or whether anybody knows that there were other undersea kingdoms besides Atlantis. Add on top of that evenings filled with dinners and get-togethers with those selfsame people, and it can all become exceedingly grueling.
We finished up by around 4:00 on Wednesday, just in enough time for me to come back to the office and try to dig through the previous three days’ worth of work, including the final preparations for sending SECRET INVASION #8 to the printer. Totally exhausted, I did another three and a half hours of work, everything from proofing over lettering to answering e-mails and composing planning documents. By the time I stepped foot out of the building, I was completely beat, and ready to go home and collapse.
But first, I went down the block to Jim Hanley’s Universe to pick up that week’s new books.
I can’t help it; that’s just the way I’m programmed after so many years of making that weekly trek. I won’t wait the extra day if I can at all avoid it—even if the stuff I’m picking up isn’t going to get read until the weekend. And I read and buy far more of it that is generally considered healthy. Why is that? I don’t know. There’s just something about the form that intrigues me, that keeps me coming back. And with the tremendous variety of material that’s now available, there’s something new to pick up just about every week—I can’t recall the last time a Wednesday went by when I didn’t walk out of the shop with at least something. And that’s on top of the weekly comp bundle I get.
My younger self would be appalled by how many comics I have sitting around waiting to be read. In my younger days, new comic day (which was Friday at that time) was an event. I’d pick up a paycheck, motor over to the local store, stock up on the new books, then spend a decent portion of the evening reading through them. It was rare that anything survived Friday unread, but even then, by the time the weekend was done, so were all of the comics. But now, I just have more to read than I can handle, and it continues to stack up, despite my best efforts. I’m a very fast reader, but that still hasn’t kept me from falling months verging on years behind in keeping up with certain titles.
So why do I continue to seek out new books, new stuff to add onto the top of that stack? It’s an addiction.
SECRET INVASION #8 is off to the printer, by the way, so the Invasion is officially over! (Can’t show you the last panel, like I did with CIVIL WAR, since it’d give something away—you’ll just need to take my word for it.)
More later.
Tom B
Art Avalanche
2008-11-07 18:16:50
We've got one of our creative summits taking place during the first half of next week, so it'll probably be fairly quiet here at blog central for the next few days. But here's some preview art to help tide you over.
More later.
Tom B
Talkback
2008-11-04 14:43:33
We always seem to get a much better turn-out in the comments section whenever I open the floor to you guys—I guess it’s true that most people like talking about themselves. So let me hit you with another question, as long as we’re already on this track.
We’re living in something of a golden age when it comes to reprint collections. Both in terms of quantity and quality, it’s never been easier to find the classic material you’re interested in. And yet, even with our increased production (and doing books like ESSENTIAL DAZZLER), we can’t quite collect everything. There are always those stories, those runs, those issues that fall through the cracks.
I’m talking about those books that, for whatever reason, you love, but which the world at large refuses to acknowledge as great (or even remember.) What obscure run that you really love would you like to see collected?
More later.
Tom B
Challenge III
2008-11-03 15:12:02
Going for a bit of a hat trick here, I’ve got another in our series of questions about quality to ask you.
Now, individual taste is often subjective, and changes over time. I can point to any number of books that I thought were terrible when they were first coming out that I’ve since gained a greater appreciation of. (Heck, the entirety of the Marvel line kind of counts for this one, since I was an avowed Marvel hater for my first five or six years of comic book reading.) And the reverse is also true—there are titles that I enjoyed when they were first published that seem crummy to me now. So much of why we like what we like has to do with when we encounter it, and under what circumstances.
So—today’s challenge: name a title that you hated when you first encountered it that you now, in retrospect, like a great deal.
More later.
Tom B
Challenge II
2008-10-31 17:46:21
We got our typical outstanding response to yesterday’s question about quality, so I thought I’d toss another one out there—one that a few people have already anticipated.
You’ve already tried to pick out some books that you thought had been produced with quality, but that you nonetheless didn’t like. We got kind of a mixed bag in terms of responses—many of them seemed to argue the quality of the book they were pointing to (usually on the grounds that “Everybody else says it’s good.” ) So now let’s look at the opposite:
I’d like for you to name a series that you really liked despite the fact that you know it’s lacking in quality. And, most importantly, I’d like you to indicate why.
I’ll be very interested in seeing what turns up. Extra points if you mention FANTASTIC FORCE or SECRET DEFENDERS.
More later.
Tom B
Challenge!
2008-10-29 19:01:26
Just a quick update tonight, since I'm in a rush--but I wanted to throw a question out to the gropu, based on what we were speaking about yesterday and the responses to that post.
It seems to me that, at the end of the day, everybody feels that the stuff they like is quality, regardless of how many other people like it, regardless of how well it sells.
And, typically, people decry the quality of books that do sell well--especially when they don't like them.
So, in trying to create some sort of objective barometer of quality:
Can you name some series that you believe were produced with quality, but that you do not like?
Discuss.
More later.
Tom B
|
About this blog:
Ramblings and musings from the mind of Tom Brevoort. "It won’t be clean. It won’t be fun. It mostly won’t be coherent."
 | About the author:
Tom Brevoort is Executive Editor for Marvel Comics, and oversees such titles as New Avengers, Civil War, and Fantastic Four. |
Comics
Marvel.com
Movies
Others
Video Games
|
|
|
|
|
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
save this link
