How Many Are Employed Worldwide In The Graphic Novel Industry?

Far too few.

Before the Gutenberg Press, all books were graphic novels. Everything was hand drawn, including the letters which gave the Scribe incredible freedom. He could do anty letter (say) "Y" any number of ways - it didn't have to be the same every single time.

Once all books looked like this

Is this an early graphic novel?

The Column of Marcus Aurelius AD 180-192 Rome

Then the Gutenberg Press came along and in order to make books cheaper, they standardised letters and sizes and did away with all that beautiful illumination. Books became pale, ghostly imitations of books.

Now, over 600 years later, we think that that is how books should be.

In fact, we've relegated pictures to childrens books to the point where we think it "grown up" to have pages as bare and white as dead coral.

But art n general and the graphic novel in particular are having the last laugh.

Look around you. There is art everywhere. It's on your walls, its on the streets, it's in every magazine, it's on TV. Every product we buy is covered and decorated with art. We are awash in an ocean of art.

And the graphic novel is coming back into fashion. With modern printing, it's as easy and simple to reproduce art as it is black text on a white page. In fact, with more and more people giving up the printed page in preference to a computer screen, it's even easier to introduce and combine art with text to tell a story.

There's even a pen that will record my movements as I draw and write and then transfer it straight to computer into a PDF document ready to share with billions of people.

Livescribe 3 Smartpen for Android & iOS Tablets and Smartphones

And graphic novels are available in mainstream bookshops.

To give you an idea of just how exciting this is, here are some examples from the field of art journaling

This re-joining of text and image - what was divided is whole once again - is truly exciting. And the sooner most books are treated in this way the better

Which Movies Could Be Better Told From The Antagonist's Perspective?

 Actually, most already are.

As I came to answer this, I thought about some movies where the "good guys" are obviously bad and realised that to tell the story from the real "good guys" angle would make the plot fall apart.

Notable Examples:

• The Matrix
• Blade Runner
• Natural Born Killers
• Pulp Fiction

13 Characters We Loved...Until We Realized They Suck

9 Famous Movie Villains Who Were Right All Along

Movies where the "bad guy" is actually the "good guy"

Then you have the case where the good guys and the bad guys are both as bad as each other

Notable Examples:

• Star Wars
• Inside Man
• Watchmen
• Law Abiding Citizen
• Clockwork Orange

What movie could you turn around and say the good guy was really the bad guy?

Now I don't have a problem with morally ambiguous material. In fact, I'm all for it because it's more intereting - when it is intentionally written that way. I have a problem with it when it's the result of bad writing ie when a writer goes out to make a hero but a plot hole in the badly written story makes the hero unintentionally flawed in a way that demolishes the whole story.

A classic example is almost every superhero movie where the superhero appears to have absolutely no interest in the collateral damage they are a party to just so long as the villain is caught. I have never once seen a hero take the fight somewhere where no one would be hurt or coordinate with the emergency services to get people to safety or even help in the clean up afterwards - and they're the heroes? I don't think so.

The problem is context.

Few movie writers think of their stories as part of a whole. Each action, each word, has consequences. And if you don't think about them, they will ripple out, hit an object and bounce back, destroying the original pattern that created them.

Is A Zombie Immortal If Not Shot In The Head?

Short Answer

No, they died to become zombies. That's the defintion of "zombie" They are now re-animated by some other force, either natural (creating bio-zombies) or supernatural (true zombies). In most cases, that re-animating force doesn't stop the body decaying.

Long Answer

The kind of zombie that you're thinking of was created by George Romero. The explanation (such as it is) is that the dead have become infected with a space virus from a comet tail which is transmitted from host to host through breaks in the skin from biting or scratching from the infected. After 2-3 days, the virus has multiplied sufficently to kill the host and then, by means unknown, keeps the nervous system alive so that it can take control of the host and use it to spread the infection by eating human flesh. It is unlikely that the dead host gains any nutrition from this feasting and it is merely a way of encouraging the biting and scratching behaviour needed for successful transmission. Beheading or a simple bullet in the head is enough to destroy the motor areas of the brain which doesn't kill the host (because it's already dead) but stops the virus from using the host as a vehicle for further transmission. Because there is a biological basis for the disease, it's known as a bio-zombie.

This has been the basis for all other bio-zombie movies and stories until the present day. There have been variations from the Romero model but these are simply to make the zombies tougher

However, despite all of the improved powers, these bio-zombies are still really lame.

Here's why:

Day 1:

Within hours, flies will smell the dead flesh and plant their eggs in them. 2-3 days later, the body would become a writihing mass of hungry, meat-muching maggots.In warm weather, conducive to fly growth, maggots can consume 60 per cent of a human body in less than a week

Decomposition: fly life cycle and development times

In 2-4 hours, Rigor Mortis would set in and the body would be unable to move for a few days until it wore off. However, it is possible that virus may have some unknown means to counter-act that in order to use the body.

At the same time, autolysis starts. This is where the enzymes and digestive juices that we produce to consume our food start consuming us.

Day 2:

After 36 hours, putrefaction starts. The bacteria in your gut will chew through your flesh. Unchecked, gasses and liquids will build up and this can cause the the gut to explode. Nice

Also by now, the smell would have attracted scavengers, some like bears, wolverines and big cats will find a zombie little challenge. Others like dogs, foxes, buzzards and crows will simply wait until the corpse is sufficently dismembered to be of no threat to them.

The Rate of Decay in a Corpse

7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Outbreak Would Fail (Quickly)l

Also, one point that no film has ever dealt with is that a zombie cannot sneak up on you unless it is downwind. The stench of decaying flesh is unmistakeable so you would be able to smell them long before you turned a corner to confront one. Not to mention the excessive farting and belching they would be doing because of the putrefaction.

I told you that they were lame.

What is the best scene ever in the Marvel Universe movies?

It's the one that started it all.

A guy thinks he's got lucky with a hot chick. They go to an exclusive dance club. Suddenly the sprinkler system starts up. But it's not water, it's blood. And the guy discovers that he's in a room full of vampires so he's in real danger. They beat and torture him as he tries to escape. He lands at the feet of someone and looks up. The entire mood changes. All the vampires recognise the stranger and they're scared - really scared. An entire room of vampires backs away to reveal Blade. He smiles and steps forward as the vampires continue to move back.

Here was the first legitimate black comic character. Not the jive-talking escapee from a blaxpolitation movie that was in the comics but a real live recognisable black American. OK, so he was created in 1973, two years after Shaft and although it was also 6 years after In "The Heat Of The Night", I suppose that they thought a Shaft clone would appeal to their younger, hipper readers. Or maybe as a bunch of middle class whiteys, they had no idea how to present a black character. As Marv Wolfman said "The early Blade dialogue was cliche 'Marvel Black' dialogue. Later on, I tried to make him more real. But it took growing up as a writer"

And he looked liked someone who could take on a room of vampires, too. He came in armed and prepared.

An unsung hero: How Blade helped save the comic-book movie

6 Specific Reasons Why Superhero Movies Ruined Comic Books

Sadly, nothing that followed ever lived up to the promise.

What Is A Superhero?

There are two conflicting definitions of hero:

1. The real-life hero
2. The literary hero

The Real-Life Hero

The real-life hero is an ordinary person who finds themselves in extra-ordinary circumstances and finds some expression of humanity within them that enables them to face up those circumstances.

This is someone like Johnson Beharry, the only living VC holder or a fire-fighter who goes into a burning building to rescue a complete stranger and then goes and does it again the very next day.

The Literary Hero

The literary hero is an entirely different beast. The "Hero With A Thousand Faces" defines a literary hero as some one who chooses to undertake The Hero's Journey:

1. The hero-to-be starts off as an ordinary person
2. There is a threat to those the hero-to-be cares for (big dragon, alien invasion, approaching eco-failure)
3. The hero-to-be becomes a hero by going on a quest to gain a power to defeat the threat. The quest must involve sacrifice and effort so the harder the quest, the greater the hero.
4. Once they gain the power, they choose to use it for the intended purpose (ie defeat the threat) rather than any selfish purpose
5. And then the really great heroes give up that power once the threat has been defeated and go back to being ordinary people again.

Perseus from "Clash of the Titans" is a classic example. His story starts with him as a fisherman and once he has defeated the kraken,his gives up all powers and returns to being a fisherman.

There are three anti-heroes:

• The person who has greatness thrust upon them but doesn't desire it and even runs away from it. This is almost every single Marvel superhero except, Punisher and, maybe, Dr Strange.
• The person who seeks greatness for their selfish and personal revenge against the monster for the pain it has already inflicted. That is, they can't stop the threat because it has already happened. They merely want "justice" (revenge). An example is Punisher.
• Then there is the anti-hero who finds the power consuming them. A classic example is The Shadow whose power comes from the evil within him that would consume him if he allowed it. To some extent, this is also Batman. He could easily reduce crime by killing criminals but that would make him a worse criminal. You could also include Hulk in this category.

This probably explains why all of the Marvel heroes are so whiney - because they didn't choose to become heroes. So they go on about how much of a curse it is and how they'd love to be normal. At least the DC heroes have the decency not to whinge about being heroes.

Well, that's disappointing. I have just claimed that there are no such things as super-heroes because they didn't choose that path. At best, they are super-anti-heroes.

And here we have the problem of virtually every single super-hero: no real threat.

They get their super-powers by accident and then later choose to use them fighting evil - but what evil? The solution is to have multiple threats or an ongoing threat. This is why I say the supervillain is the most important part of the story not the superhero. The villain gives the hero purpose - a reason to put the tights on and cruise bars, oops, sorry wrong tights. The villain is necessary to create the hero

However, multiple threats are hard work because you have to create so many new villains or you have to keep recycling them.

But the problem with a recurring villain is he/she/it must be stronger than the hero so the hero cannot defeat it right away. But the hero must win or he isn't a hero. So the hero must partially defeat the villain but not completely.

Now you can get around that by making the villain an organisation. So you have S.P.E.C.T.R.E., T.H.R.U.S.H., Hydra, A.I.M. and others. In this way, you can defeat part of the organisation and still have the threat continue.

Lethality - Dicing With Death

I had a D&D character go up 255 levels of experience in one game because of one action (but that's a whole other story for another time)

Whenever he comes up in conversation, I always get two responses from DMs. The first response is

"I would've kill him"

Now this is so lame for three reasons:

1. The DM can kill any character in their game. They don't even have to give a reason:

DM "Your character is dead. Roll up a new one"

Player: "How did I die?"

DM: "You don't know because your character is dead. Roll up a new one"

Player: "Well did I feel anything in my last moments that might give me a clue"

DM: "No because your character is dead. Roll up a new one"

You get the picture

2. Since when do you punish players for making the right decisions? Not once has a DM said, "I would've prevented you from succeeding". No instead, they say "Well I wouldn't have been clever enough to stop you so I would've just killed you afterwards instead".

3. Since when did death become the end of the game? There are gods and an afterlife. Vikings believed that they had to show bravery in the here-and-now so that they were worthy of Valhalla when they died. The whole of Egyptian culture was about the afterlife. So if you kill my character, you haven't ended him; he's just gone to be with the gods. That's hardly a final solution is it?

Number 3 bears some looking into. Since when did death become the end of the game? Well according to a recent podcast about the subject of gods (Save Or Die 112: Oh My Gods) it was the first casualty of the edition changes. Somewhere just before 2nd Edition, death became an undesired option for characters. They were no longer happy dying. And D&D obliged. When gods, the afterlife and demons were dumped in 2nd Edition, it was only because death for player characters had already been removed. This became the difference between PCs and NPCs - NPCs died, PCs didn't.

But there's a problem with that: if you not going to die, you can't lose. And if you can't lose, winning is inevitable. And if winning is inevitable, then there's no skill in winning. And if there's no skill, what's the point in playing well because you're going to win anyway. And suddenly the game stopped being a challenge and stopped being fun.

It wasn't long before gods and demons found their way back into the game - and, by extension, so did the afterlife. But death never came back. And a major motivation for playing the game it vanished forever.

The stupid thing was that dying was just like losing a game of Chess. Your character may have died but you, the player, got smarter (hopefully) and learned not to do something. So your next character survived a bit longer. So death wasn't a punishment, it was just the result of poor choices.

How Will Virtual Reality Films Differ From Traditional Films?

The problem for me is that you can't have virtual reality films. Once a film enters virtual reality, it ceases to be a film in any recognisable way. To be accurate with the films at Sundance, they're not VR yet - they're basically glorified 3D. That's not to applaud the filmmakers for pushing the edge, I'm just saying that this is about as far as they can take the medium as filmmakers.

The whole point of a film is that it is a passive, solitary experience. You focus all of your attention on the screen. You are shown images from a set angle in a set sequence that tell a set story. With VR, all of those things become interactive and non-linear. Technically, it is more akin to a game than a film. For example, I can see a time very soon when George RR Martin is no longer here to continue the story of Game of Thrones but he is simply replaced by "Game of Thrones - the VR Interactive Experience" where people can join the Stark clan or Ice King group or whatever and continue the adventure themselves. Some of the best stuff will be recorded and played back to anyone interested as a passive story.

This is why VR won't appeal to everyone. Many people don't want to work for their entertainment. They want to be passive and have it spoon fed to them. So film will continue on for a very long time.

Of course, VR won't just be the province of gamer/storytellers. It could also be used to create interactive art installations and interactive, improvised theatre. So VR looks like being a roleplaying experience more than a film. In other words, if you reallyy want to experience the future of VR, go to a murder mystery evening.