Sunday, October 5, 2003

Statement of Policy

I probably shouldn't have to post this but I will: The articles to which I link and the websites I recommend will not necessarily show you viewpoints with which I agree or even "facts" which I believe to be true. They will, at best, show you articles that I think are worth reading, even if you (like I) ultimately decide they're full of mule excrement.

A couple of recent e-mails suggest to me that visitors to this page are confused, perhaps because so many sites out there link only to those with which they usually agree. Currently in my "links" listing, I have pages as diverse as The Corner and Tapped, as Media Whores Online and Free Republic. I dunno how anyone could think that I concur with the views of reality you'll find in those venues since they're pretty much mutually exclusive. But I operate on the theory that no side has a monopoly on the truth...and even when you find the truth, it can stand up to the perusal of other possible truths.

If I agree with something, I say so. And if I don't say so of a link to a specific piece, it generally means I think the piece is worthy of consideration. Even if you and/or I both ultimately reject it. Thank you.

• Posted at 4:30 PM · LINK

The Next Comic Book Controversy

It may not burst into the public arena in this form, but an argument is currently building in several companies that either publish comic books or syndicate comic strips or otherwise exploit and merchandise cartoon or comic book-style characters. The argument is over what the target audience is, and to what extent they can market their properties to one age demographic without losing another. For the most part, it's an argument about adult content. One division wants to use a character in a comic book [or movie project] full of extreme violence and/or sexy scenes. Another division says, "Whoa! We have a deal pending with this toy company [or cartoon studio] that's hitting the 4-12 age group and your project will scare them off."

This is not a new debate. In the early eighties, ABC was about to buy a Saturday morning cartoon show based on a popular comic book but they called it off when they saw how violent the comic was getting. The folks in the editorial division of the comic book company felt, probably correctly, that they were producing what their readers demanded. Others at the firm pointed out that the animated series and its inevitable merchandising would have generated a hundred times as much revenue as the comic book...to which the editors replied, "Our job is to sell comics. We can't do that while worrying about what might or might not kill one of your toy or TV deals." Usually, the decision in such disputes has been to at least try to have it both ways, but that doesn't always work. Merchandising and media deals have been scotched because the comic book seemed to be skewing "too adult." Comic book sales have sometimes been harmed because, it is felt, the book was being done for a young audience that buys toys and watches cartoons but doesn't buy comic books.

For the most part, this applies to super-heroes and comes down to squabbles over how much blood and mayhem the heroes can wreak, and how much skin the heroines can show. But it also applies to a few "funny animal" properties and to questions over whether their adventures should include jokes that younger viewers/readers may not comprehend. In some cases, an older property may be perceived as having a certain nostalgia appeal and that brings another set of concerns: Should we do the version of this character that folks who are now thirty recall from their childhoods, or should we do the version familiar to today's kids? And more importantly, can we do something that satisfies both?

As I said, they've generally tried to have it both ways but a number of recent clashes suggest this may not be possible much longer. The current interest in movies based on comic books seems to be inflaming the problem because the movie producers generally have a "rating" in mind. A very successful director is interested in making a motion picture based on a very famous, well-established comic book but he wants to do the film his way, which would doubtlessly incur an "R" rating for sex 'n' violence. That could make the owner of the property an awful lot of cash but it would also probably kill a proposed animated series and several toy licenses for the character. Conversely, there's a property that is wanted for an animated series and a master toy license...but maybe not if the character's comic book is going to keep featuring steamy scenes and aiming for an older audience. (Another question is that of crossovers. If you decide to position a given property for the younger crowd, can you then have guest appearances involving characters who appear in "mature" comics?)

So you have this discussion going on in many offices and there's no easy answer. Like it or not, a certain amount of revenue from doing comic books and strips and cartoons has always flowed from serving the youngest age brackets and no one wants to end that. But there's now more of an older audience than there's ever been for comic-oriented material. A comic book publisher can easily have different lines for different age ranges but a number of recent deals that have fallen-through (or may) have convinced many that they cannot exploit their star characters in all venues at once; that they may have to decide that certain characters are for children and some aren't. How they decide may determine how these companies will define themselves for the future.

• Posted at 2:59 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

Over at the New York Times (registration required), Frank Rich laments that the only artists who have been effective in categorizing 9/11 are those in the White House.

• Posted at 1:25 PM · LINK