King Ghidorah
Rodan
Mothra
...Emma is so arrogant and snobbish. She treats other people like toys, or pieces on a chessboard. She moves them around saying, "You've got to go with that one, and you've got to go with that one," as if they've got no will or taste or imagination of their own.I feel like I need to see Gwyneth's version again, because I think I owe her an apology. I remember liking the end of her version, or at least feeling some satisfaction that she's really truly learned her lesson. As I was watching Kate's version, I only remembered two scenes from Gwyneth's. One was the picnic scene and Mr. Knightley's (the only character from the story I really like) laying into Emma for being so mean. The other memorable scene was towards the end when Emma realizes that she loves Knightley and we witness her extreme, repentant gratitude that she may not have lost him forever.
[There] are those artists who have wonderful artistic skills but simply think that white women are the most beautiful women on earth. Scratch that. The only beautiful women on earth. And because they believe that all heroines should be beautiful, the result is that they depict non-white heroines with stereotypically white features. They give a character like Storm the features they think a beautiful woman should have instead of the features a beautiful woman from Kenya would likely have.The bold text is my emphasis, because that's where I disagree with her. I would much rather see Vixen (and Jubilee and any number of other whitewashed characters) drawn accurately, but I don't think my wishes on the matter should affect how any particular artist chooses to draw. There's a lot I don't like about Ed Benes' art, but I don't think he needs to change it to suit me. Not if that's the way he really, truly wants to express himself artistically. He should absolutely be able to draw however the hell he wants. I don't have to like it though and I don't have to buy his stuff.
And that's a problem. How do you resolve it? Well I certainly wouldn't want anyone to change what he or she finds to be beautiful. Hell, that's impossible to do anyway. But those artists will have to work against their brains a bit. Those artists may think that giving a character a wider nose or eyes without lid creases will make that character unattractive. What needs to be realized is that the audience has a much broader definition of what is attractive. Have you ever given someone a gift that you didn't like but you knew the other person would love? You put the other person first. Those artists need to put the audience first.
It's not uncommon to hear some, even among top talents in the industry, talking about how comics are just comics, will always just be comics, should always just be comics, and anyone in comics thinking otherwise is a pompous self-loather trying to rise above their station. And they're wrong.Comics have been in the literary ghetto for a long time. I remember a quote that I think was by Warren Ellis maybe? I can't find it now, but whoever it was who said it was actually quoting a Japanese director and talking about how when no one's paying attention to your stuff, you have a lot of room to be bold and take big risks.
The American comics industry has lived for a long time on its own relatively isolated little island, where things have developed under fairly unique circumstances. But the medium's no longer an island; only the business is. And now only if we choose to be. Because comics are mainstream now, as mainstream as anything. They're acceptable. They're accepted.
Just "making comics" isn't good enough anymore. Used to be – and a lot of creators and would-be creators still operate like this – that to "make comics" all you'd need is some rough idea and somebody to draw pictures about it, and because it was in comics format and the market was predisposed to be sympathetic, it was easy to pass that off as a story. The comics industry was considered to be working under special circumstances, and special dispensation was handed out like Halloween candy.I'm finding that's true in my own comics buying. I'm less and less willing to shell out three bucks for a crap - or even mediocre - comic. I want Awesome. And I finally have enough choices that I think I can get Awesome.
If you haven't noticed, even on our little island sympathy is a scarce commodity these days. There are still plenty of books flooded out there that are incoherently written, or have art that doesn't mesh with the subject matter, or are seemingly plotted via dart board, or lack noticeable structure or hooks, or are predicated on ideas that are utterly unoriginal or uninteresting. There are also a lot of comics that don't sell to save their souls, though the two things never quite hit a one-to-one correlation. It's pretty obvious that at a lot of companies the title "editor" is sort of an honorific handed out and a lot of people claiming the title have no editorial training and an infirm grasp of what exactly an editor is supposed to do.
There was a time when all of that was good enough, when the industry and the market may not have considered any of that good, exactly, but it was considered good enough.
Now it's just not good enough. It's time to reimagine what constitutes a "good" comics story, and how this applies to the growing graphic novel market.