and writers. In all comics.It's like changing the actor in a movie midway through, it doesn't matter if they have the same name or even following the same script, they're basically a different character. What happens to a character when drawn by a new artist is totally disconnected to wahtever happened under the previous artist.And other things that would fix comics.
This random interaction here between Gordan and Batman means nothing. There's no history between these two characters, they've only existed for tiny amount of time that the particular artist and writer have been together. Any supposeed history that exists in the form of decades of lore is just that, lore, but you can't read it because it doesn't really exist. It was drawn by different artists and writers, it was essentially different characters. It superficially resembles what is drawn here, but it has no real being.All comic titles or runs should be given to a single artist and writer, or team of artists and writers, and then it should never change. If one of the artists or writers wants to quit or falls ill or dies, then the run ends.If Arnold Schwarzenegger stops playing the Terminator, nobody comes in to replace him, attempting to convince the viewers that he is the same Terminator from before. Arnold IS the Terminator. When an artist draws a character in a comic, that is the character for that universe that is exclusive to that artists rendition of the character. It does not, can not, exist outside of those boundries.
>>155132960Now you might say that giving a single artist/writer/team exclusive rights to work on a title would be bad for younger individuals in the comics industry, who will now have no chance to work on a famous title to make a name for themselves.The opposite will happen. New artists and writers, if they have talent, will be forced to make their own titles. Whether it be original or a ne run on an existing character, they will have full reign to show their stuff. And veteran pros will not be able to swoop in and snatch all the good opportunities like they do currently.A new artist/writer would only ruin a good title if they didn't have the talent to do this anyway.Furthermore, this would totally eliminate the toxic culture in comics, wherein a writer or artist will deliberately ruin a comic that was previously worked on by someone they didn't like. With such exclusivity, if some artist or writer does something they don't like, they will have no means of attacking it, they can only work on their own title.
>>155133019The only real downside to this is that it will mean an artist you particularly like will no longer draw such a wide variety of things. Where before they will do Spider-Man one week, Captain America the next, Ironman after that. Instead they will only make a single title (or multiple if they can handle the workload, but those would still be exclusive) But the benefit of this would be that that one artist or writer will be able to more fully develop that one title, crafting a fuller narrative and honing in the art style to form a title that perfectly reflects that artist or writer.Some artists/writers opt for a more cartoony tone to their stories, some more gritty, some more romantic, some more political, etc. When you constantly change artists and writers, the title ceases to have any clear focus or direction. By sticking with one team, you stick with one tonal direction and really refine it.
>>155133078Now you might also say, well what if an artist or writer really likes another's work and wants to work on it? Now he cant.True, but the result is better. Where before he would just simply work on that title, now he must instead be inspired by it, and make his own work like it. The result is more originality, not less. More content, not less.
>>155133124I somewhat agree anon. I think the best solution would just be another Image-type company where indies are just more prevalent and ambitious compared to some of the stuff we have now.
>>155133150I think in the past, comics were a bit like those rolled up candies where the paper wrapper had a little comic strip inside.It wasn't really fine art stuff. The idea was that a kid would buy it, read it, and then toss it. It costs very little, the characters and the stories were very simple. This is why in all old comics, each story stands alone and introduces the characters every time, because every comic was designed to be someone's first comic.But anyway, the point is, in such an industry, it really doesn't matter who's drawing the comics, they're obviously owned by the company and what sort of comics get made is decided by the company. The company produces the comics with its artists and writers as unnamed employees working merely as production staff.But this has long since changed and now comics are much more serious, and people expect a certain level of quality. But that level of quality cannot be made with an business structure akin to that of a candy wrapper. It's not fit for purpose, and if comics ever want to improve they need to change.
>>155133224Yeah. It's kinda like vidya. Vidya has had unrealistic graphics creep for a long time while gameplay is the same type of shit since the PS2 or PS3. The same types of puzzles and boss fights. And comics still feature the same shit but even worse and the fidelity of digital art reaching heights like Stegman's stuff in Venom (just talking about the art) is unrealistic on Marvel's schedule as well as compared to competitors like manga. That's why stuff like Kraven's Last Hunt was a special event that only happened rarely. The fundamentals of the issue to issue books has taken a nosedive. That's just one aspect of the decline in comics quality.
