Comic Books
A place to discuss comic books of all types, from old to new, Big 2 to indie, and everything in between.
Floppies, graphic novels, compilations, omnibusses (omnibusi?) are all fair game.
There is only one rule:*
Comic Books is a no judgement zone.
You can talk all you want about how Rob Liefeld is trash, Bob Kane is an asshole, or Frank Miller and Dave Sim’s politics have made them toxic, that’s all good.
If, however, another user is LEGITIMATELY a fan of something you don’t like, that does NOT make them a lesser person. Attack the art for being bad, not the person for being a fan of bad art.
* I lied. There are TWO rules... No piracy. Cover shots? That's good. Interior pages, in moderation? Sure. Full books? Links to pirate sites? That's how we get things shut down. :(
I'm not saying it's been a problem, because it hasn't been.
See our sister sites!
Marvel Studios! For all the latest on the Marvel Cinematic Universe!
https://lemmy.world/c/marvelstudios
For other cinematic content, hit up Movies! Aquaman is coming soon, followed by the big reboot!
And don't forget Movies and TV over at lemm.ee! A good place for discussing Marvel, DC and other film and television properties!
Want to talk BOOK books? See Books!
Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay? Becoming Superman? John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood? That's the place!
view the rest of the comments
This cancelling of people, i can understand. The cancelling of art made by those people is beyond me. Will we destroy the Mona Lisa if we should find evidence that Leonardo was a sexual predator?
Canceling future stuff and destroying existing stuff are not the same, you can tell because they use different words.
I mean, if the story has a planned ending and you've destroyed any chance of that planned ending ever happening - you've effectively destroyed the existing media. I don't really see the difference between the two in this instance.
So, are all the shows that are canceled without an ending also destroyed? Cuz I mean most of those aren’t even canceled for a reason, like this is (other than money).
Sure, they aren’t story-complete, but they aren’t gone, they are still available to consume, as are the first 7 releases of this series.
Just treat it like a cliffhanger. Lots of stories end that way on purpose.
Broadly speaking, the difference is that the artists around the project are going to move on to different projects while Gaiman is frozen out of anything new.
Difference between art which already exists and art which is being created. No one is saying to destroy what Gaiman has already made. They simply said they aren't supporting his creation of more art on account of him being an asshole.
Is he involved in it? Like Dead boy detectives is he involved? I guess at the very least he is getting money for it.
Bingo. Starve the beast.
The beast at this point has enough money to comfortably live 10 lifetimes without earning any additional income. I don't think it matters one single shit whether we try to "starve" it or not. He'll be long dead before it affects him in any way.
Of course you can decide not to buy/use/watch it. Thats up to you
Which is what Dark Horse just did.
Still: art in itself is just art. Either good or bad. Thats not depending on the morals of the maker
Yes and gaiman can still make art, even if nobody buys it. Not supporting problematic artists is not the same as cancelling their art.
It's an adaptation of an existing novel. Your analogy falls apart under the most minute of scrutiny
Are you suggesting Dark Horse should be forced to publish Gaiman's book?
also in addition too the other comments: Davinci had no publisher like dark horse. The artist is free to continue creating art (no idea about the copyright situation about this series but in general).
Uh, no. Artists had sponsors. Wealthy nobles.
some did. davinci didnt. and since this is the example you came up with, i feel my point stands.
Your claim that Davinci had no sponsor runs contrary to what I'm reading. Do you have a citation to back that claim up?
did you read that? Because to me it really reads like it talks about davincis comissions. Which are not a publishing/patreoning deal. It even talks about his focus on his personal work outside those comissions. just because the word patreon is used in the article makes it support your point...
But for you i did another quick read of his wikipedia article (do you need a link to that or can you find that on your own?) and read that in the last 7years of his life he had the vatican as a patreon for his art. Before he had two other patreon for shorter times mostly for his engeneering, cartographing and organizing talent.
and to finish this petty argument of: even when all you claim is true. artist are still able to produce art without a publisher. which was my first point. heck even you can shoot him a donation so they are not as dependent on a publisher deal, if you feel that person deserves more funds. My original point was that a publisher breaking a deal, does not prevent the art from beeing made in principle. and this point stands imo, as i didnt see any conter argument against it yet.
A tiny minority did! And do, today.
I have to imagine Gaiman an benefits from sales of these books.
We wouldn't destroy it, but things with reproductions of it would probably stop selling so well and companies wouldn't want to invest in them anymore. Which is exactly what is happening with Gaiman's stuff.
Yah I don't get it either.