Post by Bob Reyer on Jul 21, 2014 22:59:51 GMT -5
Seth,
If you've seen my other comments on this thread, you can imagine that I've written more on this topic than I ever thought that I would, but I will add this in reference to your post...actually, things in-and-related-to your post, because who am I to tell people what to like or not like, I can only speak for myself after all, and sometimes I'm not too good at that, either!
Needless to say, I don't want this to come off as if I'm attacking your taste, because that's the farthest thing from my mind, particularly as you seem well aware of the problematic nature of much of Zenescope's output; I'm just finding some interesting dichotomies in the statements and attitudes of the people quoted which cry out for me to comment upon!
To business:
1) It's hard to take any fact in a Bleeding Cool article seriously once it states this about Zenescope:
"They may also be credited for committing to the adult retelling of fairy tales as a long form comic before the success of Fables and the current trend for Once Upon A Time, Grimm and the like."
Since Fables began in 2002, and Zenescope only opened their doors in 2005, the above seems an odd conclusion.
2) In the CBR piece, Zenescope president Joe Brusha states in response to a question about whether it bothers him that the company is thought of as "just a T&A" company:
"-- there's a lot of comic snobs out there, it seems to me. People who just go, "I won't read that because there's a scantily clad Red Riding Hood on the cover." Yet if you look at a Marvel comic or a DC comic, and it has a female character in it, they're portrayed very much the same way, in my opinion."
Then, answering a question about their trades having less-revealing covers than the monthly books:
"...because they get the job done, in a lot of ways. When we're doing conventions exclusives, we have a specific fanbase that really wants it. We've actually pulled in the reins sometimes on covers. They want them even more sexy, more explicit. So we're satisfying that fanbase. In the stores, you're going through several tiers of buyers. But whenever we do a sexy cover, it outsells the less sexy cover through the retailer. They know what their fans want, and what gets people to pick it up. It's interesting, because we do try to pull the reins back sometimes, but those books won't sell as well. We're kind of -- I don't want to say pigeon-holed -- but I think we've found a niche, it definitely serves a purpose to put those out like that, and it works.
"
I guess I'm a "comic book snob", although I prefer "elitist", in the truest meaning of expecting the finest, so I'll drop books (even ones that I enjoy), over the issue of objectifying art. It seems odd for Mr. Brusha to grouse about the reception his covers get vis a vis The Big Two, and then boast about them being "sexy" with the next breath. If you're serving your adult customers well with adult material--great, leave it at that, but as bad as some things are here-and-there at DC and Marvel, that comparison not only doesn't hold water, it's leaking like a sieve--you can't eat your cake and have it, too!
3) As you said, the "Z-people" do seem aware of the out-cry over the imagery, and it does sound as if Robyn Hood writer Patrick Shand is looking to make some changes in plot elements; however, I might "cheekily" suggest he begin with the background image from his own Tumblr page, which shows what I assume is the character "Robyn Hood"...wearing nothing but a hood and a quiver of arrows! It's not posed badly, as you can't see any "naughty bits" (that's for you Python fans!), but it does undercut his contrition about the story a tad.
As I've stated many times, I'm not against "adult" comics, even ones that feature these versions of children's characters, provided they're sold to grown-ups, and as long as that attitude doesn't overtake the "regular" books as it did during the Nineties. For me though, I'm not sure I buy their premise about doing some service to female readers when the books sport those covers, no matter what's behind them.
h
If you've seen my other comments on this thread, you can imagine that I've written more on this topic than I ever thought that I would, but I will add this in reference to your post...actually, things in-and-related-to your post, because who am I to tell people what to like or not like, I can only speak for myself after all, and sometimes I'm not too good at that, either!
Needless to say, I don't want this to come off as if I'm attacking your taste, because that's the farthest thing from my mind, particularly as you seem well aware of the problematic nature of much of Zenescope's output; I'm just finding some interesting dichotomies in the statements and attitudes of the people quoted which cry out for me to comment upon!
To business:
1) It's hard to take any fact in a Bleeding Cool article seriously once it states this about Zenescope:
"They may also be credited for committing to the adult retelling of fairy tales as a long form comic before the success of Fables and the current trend for Once Upon A Time, Grimm and the like."
Since Fables began in 2002, and Zenescope only opened their doors in 2005, the above seems an odd conclusion.
2) In the CBR piece, Zenescope president Joe Brusha states in response to a question about whether it bothers him that the company is thought of as "just a T&A" company:
"-- there's a lot of comic snobs out there, it seems to me. People who just go, "I won't read that because there's a scantily clad Red Riding Hood on the cover." Yet if you look at a Marvel comic or a DC comic, and it has a female character in it, they're portrayed very much the same way, in my opinion."
Then, answering a question about their trades having less-revealing covers than the monthly books:
"...because they get the job done, in a lot of ways. When we're doing conventions exclusives, we have a specific fanbase that really wants it. We've actually pulled in the reins sometimes on covers. They want them even more sexy, more explicit. So we're satisfying that fanbase. In the stores, you're going through several tiers of buyers. But whenever we do a sexy cover, it outsells the less sexy cover through the retailer. They know what their fans want, and what gets people to pick it up. It's interesting, because we do try to pull the reins back sometimes, but those books won't sell as well. We're kind of -- I don't want to say pigeon-holed -- but I think we've found a niche, it definitely serves a purpose to put those out like that, and it works.
"
I guess I'm a "comic book snob", although I prefer "elitist", in the truest meaning of expecting the finest, so I'll drop books (even ones that I enjoy), over the issue of objectifying art. It seems odd for Mr. Brusha to grouse about the reception his covers get vis a vis The Big Two, and then boast about them being "sexy" with the next breath. If you're serving your adult customers well with adult material--great, leave it at that, but as bad as some things are here-and-there at DC and Marvel, that comparison not only doesn't hold water, it's leaking like a sieve--you can't eat your cake and have it, too!
3) As you said, the "Z-people" do seem aware of the out-cry over the imagery, and it does sound as if Robyn Hood writer Patrick Shand is looking to make some changes in plot elements; however, I might "cheekily" suggest he begin with the background image from his own Tumblr page, which shows what I assume is the character "Robyn Hood"...wearing nothing but a hood and a quiver of arrows! It's not posed badly, as you can't see any "naughty bits" (that's for you Python fans!), but it does undercut his contrition about the story a tad.
As I've stated many times, I'm not against "adult" comics, even ones that feature these versions of children's characters, provided they're sold to grown-ups, and as long as that attitude doesn't overtake the "regular" books as it did during the Nineties. For me though, I'm not sure I buy their premise about doing some service to female readers when the books sport those covers, no matter what's behind them.
h