Comments on: The New Boycott Comic: Action Comics?

By: KingdomGone

KingdomGone — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:26:03 +0000

I also find it a bit hypocritical to be an advocate for creators rights yet be ok with Rags Morales and the rest of their creative team (who to my knowledge has made no comments on the Superman issues) to lose their job based on comments made by Grant Morrison. Collateral damage is ok when we’re crusading for justice right ?

By: KingdomGone

KingdomGone — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:14:05 +0000

It’s easy to hate big evil corporations. Do you think that an independantly published Superman would have been as popular without DC’s investment over the years in the character?
Would you support the idea of DC being able to sue people in work for hire agreements to recover losses for books that don’t make back their production costs? If not – you’re expecting corporations to take 100% of the risks in the case of failure, but “be fair” in success.
At best a boycott is going to deprive people actively working in the comics industry of money and possibly even their jobs. Personally I would like to see people working in comics *today* get paid for doing their jobs rather than try to choke out the already on the ropes comic book industry in an effort to pay of creator’s descendants.

By: Tom Foss

Tom Foss — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:11:45 +0000

My problem is mostly with Velez’s thesis that the reboot would somehow allow DC to “keep some of the character that they screwed Siegel and Shuster out of.” From everything I’ve read about the rulings, any part of the Superman mythos in “Action Comics” #1 is part of the rights dispute; unless the reboot cuts out Lois Lane, Clark Kent, the name “Superman,” the blue-and-red costume, the powers, the planet Krypton, and the basic origin story, then it should have just about zero bearing on the rights. After all, if that were a valid line of reasoning, then we should have seen Warners’ lawyers arguing that the Byrne reboot (which changed key parts of the origin and even altered Lois’s appearance) was significant enough to void the royalty rights for the last twenty-five years.

Putting Superman in underpants-less armor is not going to fool the judges, and with the way that the origin story retellings have been going for the last ten years, I highly doubt that we’re going to see a radically changed Superman. If the reboot is DC/WB’s attempt to keep part of the Superman mythos, then it’s a pretty poor one by all appearances.

By: Arc

Arc — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:44:31 +0000

…..why not take boycotting further? Quit buying new comics.

Its just time to let go of buying new comics.There is just not that many good stories left to tell about most of their characters. Marvel and DC: Let them become reprint vendors. Collect the old stuff(thats what I do). Go back and fill the holes in your collection with stuff you need, instead of wasting your money on this retreaded garbage.

The more you support DC and Marvel, the worse it all gets.

You could alway just quit buying and collecting altogether: Use that money to buy video games or dvd, or save it for a house or car.
In other words: you could get a life.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:13:09 +0000

Anyhow, who cares about boycotting a comic? I’ve got plenty of reasons to stop reading DC right now… The books have been mostly sh*t since Dan Didio took over DC several years back,they’re ridiculously overpriced, and now this “New 52″ stuff is pretty ridiculous.

Maybe the Man Of Steel movie will be good (and I’m sure The Dark Knight Rises will be), but I had no interest in picking up Action Comics “#1″ anyhow.

Maybe they should include a coupon for a free download of “Forever In Blue Jeans” with each issue… Just for sh*ts and giggles.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:06:35 +0000

“screw you and your boycott you damn hippies”

Hippies? Really?

What the f*ck do hippies have to do with any of this, and what harm have hippies done you?

Aren’t there some kids on your lawn for you to yell at?

By: wg

wg — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:29:46 +0000

These things never work. Why even try? Look there are supposedly 200,000 copies of the DcNu JLA #1 being ordered and 100,000 copies for some other titles as well. DC/WB sees dollar signs. You can bitch and moan all you want. But this is a business. If they closed up shop completely would you feel any better? No, just bitch some more. No one is listening but keep at it. I’m sure you’ll end up aging well beyond you’re years and health.

By: Comics_Addict

Comics_Addict — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:08:37 +0000

Kind of rash implying about outright pirating it but I have the same feelings on the matter. As a Superman reader for the past five years I am outrage at the prospect of yet again rework the character’s origins, renumbering his long-standing titles on a “relaunch” that is more akin to reboot, changing his costume for the sake of “modernity” etc. Oh really you guys over at DC are gonna horse feed me that the reason you can’t sell Superman comics is because he wears “underwear” on the outside? Whatever happened to the best-selling OGN Superman: Earth One in which DC presented a “modern” take on the character without the need of removing his undies? And those sold like hot cakes yet. That was less than a year ago that that story was published so how are you gonna sell this “crap” to the media yet again but featuring your monthlies as well as the rest of your IP? The nerve!

By: BBoy

BBoy — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:23:42 +0000

Ugh at Blood Diamond analogy

Good ol’ white people

By: Jen

Jen — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:41:10 +0000

JIM LEE CAN KISS MY ASS!

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:40:09 +0000

I’m not buying any of them!

By: Shawn Kane

Shawn Kane — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:58:38 +0000

My LCS would be a victim to the pirating and “Byrne-stealing”. I’m not really interested in Orc Stain or most independents (though I love Hellboy) but I’m a Superman fan and want there to be Superman comics in the future so I will continue to buy DC Comics.

By: Vaneta Rogers

Vaneta Rogers — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:49:18 +0000

ROFL at tralfaz

By: Sean R-B

Sean R-B — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:16:52 +0000

Likewise, comics did not kill Bill Everett. He may have had a tortured life that he drew on in some of his work, but his problems were mainly due to alcoholism not anything comics or publishers did to him. As a matter of fact, I believe that Stan Lee gave him work when no one else would hire him due to his alcoholism and inability to finish art jobs.

By: tralfaz

tralfaz — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:11:00 +0000

this is some stupid stuff. I’m gonna buy 5 copies and hand them out to people to enjoy. screw you and your boycott you damn hippies

By: Cassidy

Cassidy — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:36:54 +0000

Comics did not kill Wallace Wood. Wallace Wood’s inability to deal with reality killed him. The man was an incredible artist and bad businessman and had a horribly unfortunate end, but comics did not kill him.

Go read Eisner/Miller for their take on same thing.

By: jaroslav hasek

jaroslav hasek — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:28:26 +0000

im going to boycott all creator owned work from now on for the artists failure to recognize the immeasurable contributions corporations and their investors have made over the years that have kept the comics industry in america thriving to the point where so many creators today can make a living doing what they love.

the blood diamond analogy is completely wack. get a clue and grow up why don’t you.

By: justme

justme — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:19:26 +0000

@ Sarah Velez. The blood diamond analogy is crap and offensive. Blood diamonds come from an enslaved mining force, many of whom were kidnapped at gunpoint, and some taken watched as any family members who could not work were executed. At the labor camps, routine murder is used as a tool to keep the miners motivated on working until they die of exhaustion, yet you feel it is an apt analogy. It is disgusting you would even make such a comparison.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:08:53 +0000

Of course, they can’t be rebooting it because the last few years have been terrible and resulted in Supes being dwarfed by Bats, GL, and even the Flash. And it also can’t be that they are doing what other properties (like Transformers and GI Joe) did to remain viable…

Please…stop making controversies for controversy making sake.

By: Sarah Velez

Sarah Velez — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:48:24 +0000

The blood diamonds analogy is completely appropriate. What are you talking about? Comics killed Wally Wood, believe that. Know that next time you read a comic with Namor in it, that that’s Bill Everett’s tortured life in between those lines.

Past that, sorry about the quality of the writing Jon. We’re all hacks in the eyes of the discerning public after all. And someday our own words will humble us all, eh? I write how I write, what else can I say?

By: jon

jon — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:13:09 +0000

All due respect to the situation with Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, and their families, but the “blood diamonds” analogy is patently offensive on so many levels. That’s the point at which it becomes impossible to take the author seriously. If you can’t make your point without resorting to such preposterous hyperbole, perhaps the written word isn’t the best choice for expressing yourself (never mind the embarrassingly poor quality of the actual writing).

By: Sarah Velez

Sarah Velez — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:29:11 +0000

Oh wow. That’s me. To clarify, I wasn’t saying that I was going to byrne-steal the book, or that I was going to pirate it–I was merely pointing out that if you’re that hard up to read the book, you can still do so without shoving money DC’s way. How that shakes with your own personal ethos is up to you.

For my part, I may or may not buy it. I may or may not read it. I may trade wait the thing just because I’m poor and have limited funds anyways. It’s not like there aren’t other great comic options out there that you can put money to that aren’t covered in blood so to say. I mean…buy an issue of Orc Stain or Hellboy for petesakes. Lord knows you’ll probably get more out of it in the end.

And at any rate, I was more debating this issue for my own conscious, so whether my action is effective in achieving any kind of means, is immaterial in the end–if not reading Action Comics #1, makes me feel better than actually reading it would. That’s sort of the scale you have to ledger your action against.

By: Thelonius

Thelonius — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:58:17 +0000

I wasn’t going to buy Action anyway, but this is such a dumb idea that it makes me want to reverse-boycott it to show that I don’t support any of these really pointless arguments.

If the original creators wanted to own their work outright, they could have published it themselves. Since they didn’t have the means, they had to sell it. Just like the guy who invented the (just about everything we use every day, including the basis of these home computer things we all love so much).

By: Darrell Grant

Darrell Grant — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:58:58 +0000

The only people who will get “punished” by a boycott are the retailers, no? DC and Marvel make their filthy lucre off the distributor, Diamond. Therefore the big two companies would be well insulated from any boycott, assuming you could muster enough solidarity to stage one. Or am I wrong?

By: MOTA

MOTA — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:08:09 +0000

But I’m not sure that giving DC(or Marvel) money for some one else’s creations, that they were not properly compensated for, feels all that right.

But they were properly compensated for at the time…. is was after the fact that is the issue — They got everything they were promised and contracted for and more….

By: Suit

Suit — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:11:03 +0000

It seems just like any other industry where the people holding the cards call the shots and everyone has to go along or perish. I don’t think there will realistically be a boycott. If there is it probably won’t do anything…woefully.

By: Supermutant

Supermutant — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:57:28 +0000

I don’t plan on reading Action Comics not because of the original creator issues. I plan on boycotting it because of the things DC doing with Superman I totally dislike. It just slap in what has worked for superman for years.

By: Kyle Garret

Kyle Garret — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:12:36 +0000

It does seem a little off to take royalties away from creators, although I guess they’re work for hire so they get paid regardless. Revelshade is right, though, about the movies, which is the bigger problem — characters like Superman are licensing cash cows, so we’d have to find a way to get people to stop buying anything with their faces on it.

By: MisterSmith

MisterSmith — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:57:57 +0000

@apd Byrne-stealing would be going to a comic shop/bookstore/etc., completely reading the comic inside of said establishment and then leaving without buying it.

By: apd

apd — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:25:53 +0000

ps Sam: the families point isn’t about law, it’s about justice. Lot’s of laws have been repealed because they were unjust…