A post from my old Marvel blog of the last decade in which I answer some more questions from the audience.
Reader Questions 2
April 28, 2007 | 1:00 AM | By Tom_Brevoort | In General
Another day of reader questions from the mailbag:
> Really, right now I just want to know if the SI: Prologue will make it in print (preferably not just collected later in the SI TPB) and not just be an online exclusive. I don’t know if it’s my settings or not (good chance it is), but I’ve never really been pleased with reading my books online. I also stare at a screen all day, so looking away into a book is a welcome change.
Posted by causeitwasfunny on 2008-03-27 19:46:00>
I don’t think there’s any plan for this at the moment, sorry. That preview was designed as an online exclusive, so while we’ll almost certainly include it in a collection-to-come, it’s not something that we were intending to print on paper before then. By that same token, while it’s a cool little story, you don’t need to have read it to enjoy or understand SECRET INVASION #1, so if staring at the computer screen isn’t your thing (and if it’s not, what are you doing hanging around this blog?) you won’t be left out once the actual shooting starts.
>What’s the best pitch of the last year that you received but couldn’t greenlight?
Posted by Binaryan on 2008-03-27 20:00:19>
No such animal. If there was a pitch that I thought was noteworthy enough to do as a comic, it more-or-less got done. But the best pitch that got green-lighted but isn’t happening (because the writer’s strike ended) was SIMPSONS’ writer/producer Matt Selman’s–about which I can tell you no more.
>Are there any projects/titles/characters that you are dying to get out there again but don’t have the right pitch for currently?
Posted by Binaryan on 2008-03-27 20:00:19>
Not as such, no. Every once in a while a character kind of starts to bubble up in the ether, as Moon Knight did a couple years ago, but in most of those cases finding the right pitch isn’t all that difficult. The only property I can think of that fits your criteria is CLOAK & DAGGER, quite possibly because they were characters who went off the rails very early on, around the time they first won their own series. I remember them being really mysterious and cool when they first showed up in PETER PARKER, SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, but once they became headliners and we started to learn more and more about them, the appeal wore off. I think there’s still something cool visually about them, but in all the years I’ve been at Marvel, nobody’s turned in a pitch for them that’s really sung to me.
>Question
Whats your take on this http://www.4thletter.net/gregland.gif
Posted by sickboy_ukuk on 2008-03-27 20:31:19>
I think it’s a URL…
>What is the likelihood of, and what would be involved in any decision to reset a title’s numbering back to where it would be if its original numbering had not been restarted (e.g. resetting New Avengers numbering back to Avengers numbering)?
Posted by Loob on 2008-03-28 00:23:23>
This is something that gets tossed around every once in a while for a particular book, typically when it’s approaching a centennial anniversary. And usually, it’s a way to make a little mini-event and get some more eyeballs on the book. But I think I’m past the point where, in general, I don’t care all that much about the numbering; it’s irrelevant to the storytelling. (And yet, I was quite pleased that the Millar/Hitch FANTASTIC FOUR run began with #554, rather than a new #1, so perhaps I’m not entirely of that mind just yet.) In any event, I don’t know that I’d advocate changing the numbering on NEW AVENGERS, because it wasn’t exactly a continuation of AVENGERS, but rather a completely new series.
And hey, let me answer that URL question from a few back a little bit more precisely. For those that haven’t clicked through, the question is about artists using heavy reference in their work. And what I’d say about that is this: every artist uses scrap to some degree. The history of comics is cluttered with artists who’d swipe their way to fame and glory. Now, today, the technology makes it all the easier to pull from all sorts of other sources as well–photographs or 3-D models or digital images or whatever. But it’s really all in how you use it. I wouldn’t hire a guy I didn’t think could draw the story effectively, but if the guy can do it, then he can do it. A buddy of mine from my art school days had a saying about art that I still use today: “If it looks good, then it IS good.” There’s more to what a guy like Greg Land brings to his page than his scrap, and that’s evidenced by the sales of the projects he draws–if the readership unilaterally decided to turn on him because of the way he uses sources in his artwork, then he’d probably have to approach things another way. But that hasn’t happened–there’s a tempest-in-a-teapot among a small group of people online, but that’s about it. As always, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it–that sends the simplest, strongest message.
More later.
Tom B
0 (0)
Report
The Tom Brevoort Experience 
The Matt Sellman pitch is intriguing. Wish we could know more about it!
It’s funny. I have gone to a couple of cons and heard so many editors say Cloak and Dagger were the hardest characters to make work. I understand why as they were popular as kids and as they grew older, the story sort of went sour. But I love Tandy and Ty. As soon as I heard they were wondering how to make them interesting again, I began working on a pitch and I’m just waiting and hoping that one day my take on the characters will see the light of day…or dark of night, in this case.
LikeLike