Mike Friedrich's Blog

(This is my fourth and last retro-posting, a short comic book script from July of 2004, which is slowly being drawn by artist and publisher Ron Fontes for his publication TAKES OF THE TERMINAL DINER)


NOTE: All words in CAPS are BOLD



PAGE ONE

Panel 1: Mid-distance shot of the Diner. Very early morning.

TITLE: TALES OF THE TERMINAL DINER

CAPTION: Dawn’s early light…

Panel 2: CU of SAM at diner counter, totally glum & disheveled; he’s been up all night, propping his head up in his hand.

SAM: What’s it take to be a comics pro?

SPLASH PANEL: Pull back to MIKE, middle-aged guy, skinny, thinning grey hair tied back in a ponytail, glasses, carrying an art portfolio. MIKE is standing next to SAM, gesturing like a tv used car salesman. SAM doesn’t know what to do, MIKE’S appearance is more than he can comprehend.

MIKE: Actually, young man, there’s ONE WAY you might consider!

MIKE-2: Try joining…

TITLE [MIKE-3]: THE RUSTY CLUNKER GANG!

CREDITS: Story:
Art: RON FONTES

PAGE TWO:

Panel 1: Two shot of SAM and MIKE. SAM has caught up, he’s now very surprised.

SAM: Huh!?

MIKE: Once I was just like you…

Panel 2: Start FLASHBACK. 20-yr old MIKE trudging through city sidewalk slush, carrying a beat-up art portfolio, chilled to the bone. He’s got a full head of long hair. No glasses.

CAPTION: I’d come from California to break into the business…

CAPTION: It was tough…

Panel 3: MIKE walking past a wall full of award plaques [“Best Artist”, “Lucca Prize”, etc].

CAPTION: Somehow I got into see NEAL FRANKLIN at his famous studio…

Panel 4: Young [mid-20’s] energetic NEAL ADAMS clone, confidently smacking MIKE’S comic book art pages with the back of his hand. MIKE looks on expectantly. We don’t see much behind NEAL, except maybe an art table. It’s important to reveal the studio setting slowly.

CAPTION: How had someone so YOUNG won so many AWARDS?

NEAL: You got a shot, kid. C’mon, I’ll take you over to see JULIE…

Panel 5: Office of JULIUS SCHWARTZ. 50 years old. White shirt and tie, no coat. He’s seated behind desk, scowling at the artwork in his hand. Confident NEAL is standing in front of him, hands clasped behind his back. Nervous MIKE cringes behind NEAL.

NEAL: Some STUFF, huh?

JULIE: Not bad – but he has no EXPERIENCE!

PAGE THREE:

Panel 1: NEAL keeps one hand behind his back, gestures at artwork with other hand, palm up. MIKE is surprised. JULIE still scowling.

NEAL: Tell ya what – give this kid a job –

NEAL-2: -- AND I’LL INK IT!

JULIE: Well, that’ll make your FANS happy--!

Panel 2: CU of JULIE sternly handing over a script.

JULIE: All right, HERE – but it has to be drawn ON TIME!

Panel 3: MIKE and NEAL leaving JULIE’S office. SAM is very puzzled; NEAL leans over conspiratorially, continued confident.

MIKE [whisper]: How can you DO this? You’re drawing both BATMAN and X-MEN this month!

NEAL [whisper]: Shhh!

Panel 4: Outside building. MIKE looks like he’s just been handed a golden egg, but he isn’t sure yet what it is. NEAL adopts professorial attitude.

NEAL: Mike, you just bring me those pages two days before the deadline!

NEAL-2: This is your chance – don’t let me down!

Panel 5: Small silhouette of city, with sun rising behind buildings.

CAPTION: I busted my butt for a WEEK on those pages, but it took LONGER than I wanted…

Panel 6: Very tired MIKE entering NEAL’S studio. We see a little more than we did the first time. NEAL’S art station faces a window; there are two vacant art stations on either side of him. NEAL beckons with his hand, neutral expression.

MIKE: Here they ARE – I’m sorry – I know they’re due TOMORROW!

NEAL: Don’t worry about THAT – c’mon, SHOW me!

PAGE FOUR:

Panel 1: NEAL seated, pointing at art.

NEAL: The STORYTELLING here is WEAK – you’ll need to RE-DO this scene –

Panel 2: NEAL fiercely sketching on a vellum overlay.

NEAL: You should pull in CLOSER here –

NEAL-2: Drop this unnecessary BACKGROUND –

NEAL-3: And get this face more like – THIS!

Panel 3: NEAL with arm around MIKE, pointing him into a small supply closet that’s been converted into an art station.

NEAL: Here, you can work on those changes NOW, while I get the INKING started.

MIKE: Okay – but --!

Panel 4: MIKE coming out of the converted closet, holding an art page, totally shocked.

MIKE: All right, Neal, I’ve finished –

MIKE: HOLY COW!

Panel 5: Large panel. The studio space we saw on the previous page is now totally packed with artists. All three art stations have an artist inking pages on them and there are more on the floor, inking on portable art boards. NEAL gestures expansively.

NEAL: That’s right – this is your FIRST TIME!

NEAL-2: Meet the RUSTY CLUNKERS! We’re all inking your story TOGETHER!

NEAL-3: I handle the FACES – DICK and LARRY do the MAIN FIGURES – AL and RALPH do the BACKGROUNDS!

PAGE FIVE:

Panel 1: CU of NEAL, winking.

NEAL: Now you get some SLEEP – we have to see Julie in the MORNING!

Panel 2: Excited SCHWARTZ handing pleasantly surprised MIKE a script, art pages on desk in front of him. NEAL stands back, beaming with pride.

JULIE: Looks good, young man.

JULIE-2: HERE – draw this script by the FIFTEENTH! You’ve earned it!

Panel 3: Outside building, NEAL clapping MIKE on the back.

MIKE: How can I ever REPAY you?

NEAL: Don’t forget it was YOUR art, I just helped it!

NEAL: As for PAYMENT, don’t worry, someday I’ll CALL you!

Panel 4: Large panel. MIKE and two artist friends, holding portfolios, on deck of STATEN ISLAND FERRY, middle of night, moon rising behind the city.

CAPTION: And that’s how I got my FIRST BREAK!

CAPTION-2: Sure enough, TEN MONTHS LATER, I got a CALL…

CAPTION-3: So at TWO A.M. I’m on the FERRY coming into town with my buddies…

PAGE SIX:

Panel 1: Large panel. Replica of Page 4, panel 5, with different artists, including MIKE. End FLASHBACK.

CAPTION: And I join the “RUSTY CLUNKERS” for the first time!

Panel 2: Back to present day in the diner. SAM has perked up and is fascinated by MIKE’S story.

MIKE: In fact, I’ve JUST COME from the LATEST overnight “rusty clunkers” gig –

Panel 3: MIKE grandly gesturing to himself, echoing an earlier pose of NEAL.

MIKE: -- only now I lead them!

MIKE: And that’s one secret of becoming a pro –

Panel 3: MIKE starting to leave, half turning away from SAM.

MIKE: We all help EACH OTHER!

TITLE: THE END

FOOTNOTE BELOW ART: Check out the GRAPHIC ARTISTS GUILD and its PRICING AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES book: WWW.GAG.ORG

(This is my third retro-posting; it was written from Jan-May, 2006 and delivered at Berkeley Methodist United Church in May, 2006)

5/4/06
Being vs Action?

If you’re wondering what I’m doing up here today, I’m afraid I have to start with a confession. Here’s the story -- during service here sometimes my attention wanders away.

I know this has happened to you, so I’m sure you understand. In fact, since actually why I’m here today is because my mind wandered once, it’s fine with me if while I’m talking your brain walks around the block; be my guest.

Anyway, back in January Rev. Naomi was preaching about talking to God; she said something about not ever knowing if your getting through, how its not like a spiritual ATM where you walk up, put in your prayers, put in your good deeds and out comes God’s response. Whatever she said after that I lost, ‘cuz =fttt= I went off and thought, “wow, that’s the dilemma right there: is it prayer that connects me to the oneness at the core of the universe, is it getting into that proper frame of mind where I give it all up to the higher power? Or is it by doing the right thing, by loving my partner; loving my family; by helping my community and helping the world?”

I’m sorry, what you didn’t know about me until today is, that’s sometimes how I really think.
For fun I took a slew of theology classes in college because I have a fascination with these kinds of questions.

I’m going to use some terms that are actually distinct somewhat interchangeably today. I just talked about “prayer”; I’m also going to use “faith” and “being”. What I’m intending is that interior spiritual state that connects us to the divine.

I’m also going to talk about “action” or what used to be called “good works”, meaning the things that we actually DO to bring about a better life for others.

For example, in my own life, I maintain as best I can a loving relationship with my partner Lee, where her fulfillment, her happiness is my concern. Sometimes this is unconscious and easy; at other times a conscious struggle.

Like, being an artist, Lee’s the happiest she can be when she’s absorbed in drawing something.....but at the same time she’s drawing there are now piles of her half-read mail-order catalogs scattered all over the house.
Love comes the hardest when straightening up a mess,
but occasionally it’s there.

On another scale, I’m acutely aware that as an American citizen I have an obligation to tell my government that it needs to act with justice and fairness, to help those that our economic system leaves behind. Sometimes I express this message in writing, sometimes I need to carry a sign in the street. So whether it’s my life at home or my life in my community, these are “actions”.

Sometimes I ask, “are these ACTIONS the best way to make things right? is doing this thing (whatever it is) how I plug into the eternal?”

On the other hand, if I’m at the Lawrence Hall of Science on a clear spring morning, with the sun behind me, reflecting off the windows of the buildings below me and across the bay at the same time, a bank of fog hovering just outside the Golden Gate, I feel connected to it all.
Or when Rev. Naomi playing Jesus during our recent Last Supper play said “friends, this is my last night with you”, a tear came unbidden to my eye. For a moment, I felt like I was there, hearing Him say good-bye two thousand years ago. Is this inward part of me, my prayer, my being, how I connect to the divine?

(weighing gesture) action? being?

*****
hold onto that question. I’m going to come at it from another angle.
*****
My father was an engineer. At a young age I became aware of how practical and hands-on he was; complementing that, my mother was the family organizer, which she had to be in order to raise 9 children. Although deeply in love with each other and both highly religious, neither of them at that time were comfortable in talking about their emotional or spiritual lives; they just didn’t have any language then for that aspect of themselves. Instead I learned how to see a problem, imagine a solution, then break the solution down into discrete small steps, then take those steps. Very practical. It’s what I do each day during the week up at the University when I help the researchers and technicians up there build a stronger union. Esther Olson (point) who is playing piano for us today is a member of that union.

However at the same time, in a way that is still not as clear to me, I also developed a more inward, mystic side, a yearning for transcendence, to touch that deepest part of all that surrounds me at the place where somehow I knew it is all connected, to touch, for the lack of a better word, God.

I remember as a teenager hiking in a forest with my dad and he pointed out how all the trees were (gesture) stretching toward the sun, that that was their nature, that’s what they did. I still remember how that feeling of reaching for the light and reaching for the warmth; that I, too, had that desire, that need, to stretch.

A couple of years later in college I found my first faith community. I went to Santa Clara University, a Jesuit school, and in the dorms every night of the week we had an 11:00 pm religious service in a dorm lounge.

Kids came in their pajamas & brought their stuffed animals
It was totally different from regular church I was used to.
Up until then I was “supposed” to go to church and now I wanted to go.
It felt like we were all in the same place, sharing a common purpose. I was transformed by the experience.

Looking back, I’m sure the fact that everyone was the same age and largely from the same background had a lot to do with it, but the religious tradition I’d grown up with was now something I was consciously choosing, because for the first time I belonged to a community.

But this was also when I started to become aware that connecting to God was not just a warming of the heart, it was not just feeling good, it was also about doing the right thing, making the world a better place.
In their best moments, Jesuits have always been an activist, social-action organization, and those ideals were held out to us by them and many of us reached for those ideals.

The Christian church has been wrestling with this question of “being” versus “action” for centuries now. Martin Luther ignited the Reformation initially over the debate of having a direct faith-connection to God, which he advocated, or focussing on so-called “good works”, which had in his view had slipped into meaningless rituals, like the number of prayers one said every day. When this theological debate became entwined with the politics of the time, wars actually ensued. It seems fantastic today to imagine killing people over something like this, but it’s true.

It shows the power that spiritual questions can sometimes take. I heard recently on NPR a capsule version of the sometimes intensive rivalry within Islam of the Sunni tradition and the Shia tradition. Some of the differences seemed to me as an outsider somewhat trivial, like which relative of Muhammad was his true spiritual heir (son-in-law, cousin)??
But another difference between the traditions was more familiar to my own Christian heritage: the question of who could be an imam, or spiritual leader; can it be anyone inspired by God (Sunni), or can it only be a direct male descendant of Muhammad (Shia)?
Christianity continues to be split over whether our own ministers can be female or not, celibate or not, gay or not, and we’ve gotten rather intense with those who don’t agree with our beliefs.

It’s not only Christianity that struggles with the question of “being” and “action”. I’ve learned over the years that Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism all contain this tension in one form or another. In an interfaith peace group I belonged to for awhile I met self-described “socially engaged” Buddhists. Based on my exposure, I’ve tended to equate Buddhism with a focus more on meditation and inward thought, but here were people going into prisons to help the prisoners inside. I recognized the struggle these faith-filled people were engaged in, bringing their meditation insights into the rough real world.

That brings me around to how I deal personally with the question of “being” or “action”.

I’ve been puzzled as to why I’ve enjoyed my experience in the choir so much. When Marsh Tekawa pestered me into joining the choir a few years ago, I told him I’d never sung outside the shower before. He laughed and said, “that’s okay, what the men lacked in quality we made up in volume” -- =hmm= I’m sure that’s why so many of you sit in the back.

I’ll tell you, as my choir-mates know, our singing doesn’t just happen. We all have to work hard. We’re always repeating certain phrases, even individual notes, until it sounds right. It takes discipline, focus, professional leadership (point), all the elements of successful “action”.

But there’s also something just completely mystic when all of our different voices come together into one harmonic sound. I feel it in my throat I feel it in my chest, and I feel it in my soul. It’s the barest hint of the eternal -- and in this context, it’s “prayer”, it’s “being”.

So what is it, being or action? Of course, it’s both at the same time. The transcendental arises from the action, the action arises from the transcendental.
Both are contained within the other. You can’t pray if you’re not working for justice. You can’t act if you aren’t singing.

Okay, it’s time to stop, Bring your mind back. I’m finished. If your thoughts went anywhere interesting, come tell me about it later. I’ll be over in the social hall having refreshments.

Now let’s get back to our songs!

(This is my second retro-posting; it was written for WRITE NOW magazine in January, 2006)

I was intrigued by the responses that 27 pros gave to the question in WRITE NOW #11 regarding business advice. Two of them used the word “agent”.

I primarily made my living for over two decades as a business manager for comics professionals. Of the 27 quoted professionals, I did business in one way or another with over two-thirds of them; one was a client for awhile, a few more were writers collaborating with artists I represented, many at the time were editors who hired or failed to hire my clients, and Stan Lee was my own hands-off editor for a time when I was a writer for Marvel.

And yet despite those years of personal interaction in talking about the business of writing comics, two of twenty-seven successful writers used the word “agent”.

I think that’s indicative right there that business representatives have always had a difficult role in comics writing. Of course I can only speak to my personal experiences and speculate as to reasons why this is so.

What I can say, flat out, is that I was never successful representing writers, even though as a superhero writer myself for DC and Marvel, I made a special effort to do so. Whatever success I had was representing artists.

Let’s look at possible reasons why a business rep MIGHT make sense for a comics writer: sales and marketing; contract negotiating; contract enforcement.

As everyone knows who reads this magazine, marketing and selling one’s writing is an excruciating job, especially so when one is starting out, or later on when one is typecast as old hat and all the editors are seemingly half one’s age. In-between, when one has gotten established there is the opposite problem, of having far more opportunities than even the most prolific scripter can handle.

In the first instance, I found that while I could market an artist’s work literally at a glance, it took a tremendous amount of time, effort and expense to get writers the editorial eyeballs they needed to gain assignments and get ahead. In a high percentage of cases the effort would not pan out, and the few successes did not pay for all the failures. This had to do with the second circumstance; once a new writer was established the marketing and sales function disappeared and writers would understandably ask themselves the question of why should they pay someone a percentage of their earnings just to say “no” to people. It saved a lot of money to say “no” oneself.

I’m not even touching on the overt resistance many editors had with dealing with me in my sales rep function. They perceived me at best as a needless extra layer of static.

In the arena of contract negotiating, the value of an experienced negotiator varies widely depending on the market conditions. I was most able to provide value when there was heavy publisher competition; as the comics publisher field consolidated in the ‘90’s that value diminished significantly.

In 1986 Paul Chadwick had eight serious bidders for his CONCRETE proposal, each of which provided detailed written bids and conducted oral negotiations as well. The result was a contract from which Paul was able to offset most of the commissions he paid me for his comics work with the added percentage of revenue I was able to negotiate for him in the film-rights area when those rights later came into play.

Fifteen years later the field had so consolidated that no publisher was willing to bid for a new property that they didn’t own unless the creator was willing to work with no financial guarantees. If anything my expertise had significantly increased in the interim, but my value was down to virtually nothing.

Even in the more limited deals of the superhero field, I was able to provide more value when there was a lot of competition and that value went south when superheroes were once again just published by DC and Marvel.

Lastly in the area of contract enforcement, I steered clients away from fly-by-night publishers because it wasn’t worth my time to chase checks that might bounce anyway. With the more financially viable publishers I was able to provide value when I had a large enough client base that I could afford to hire auditors. I uncovered accounting judgment calls at that invariably were made in the publisher’s favor and not in the creators’ favor; with that information I was able to change things back for awhile.

But as my client base and royalty streams diminished I was financially unable to continue to make that kind of investment.

So today what’s a writer to do today about improving one’s business?

First look behind the illusion of the characters one loves to write to look at the business realities of their publishers. Marvel, DC and Dark Horse make money as publishers, but they make their REAL money in Hollywood and in licensing merchandise. This reality creates a well-established dynamic in their relation to writers. They look for writers who will maintain high-profile characters or invigorate low-profile characters so that they will be simultaneously profitable as publications and more licensable as Hollywood and merchandise properties. Not-so-secretly, they also count on a certain amount of naiveté or disinterest in their writers such that those writers will create new licensable characters that the publishers will own.

At its most extreme, this dynamic leads to a “flavor of the month” mentality. More subtlety, it’s a “flavor of the year-or-two” environment. The teen and young adult readers turn over, and so do the writers they like. It’s little consolation that the same dynamic is occurring for comic artists, or creative talent in all other forms of entertainment.

So recognize that for most writers, writing pre-existing characters is either a stepping-stone or way station to another career or a sideline to an already existing career.

Sadly the economics of the field do not encourage writers to create new storylines and new characters. Writers have to be prepared to write for no money in order to do so.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. A writer can only connect to an audience with a new idea if the writer cares about the story and the characters. If one writes what one’s passionate about, one has a greater chance of succeeding in the long run anyway. One should write because one wants to or write because one has to. Just don’t expect to make a living at it until later.

This is hard gravel to swallow. But once swallowed, what about marketing, negotiating, and enforcement?

In today’s climate, the best marketing agent a comic writer can have is an artist. If a writer can find a superhero artist who wants to draw the writer’s stories, superhero editors are much more willing to give that writer a chance, because they want to keep that artist happy. If a writer can find an artist to draw a personal project for no money, that artist is a friend for life and should be valued as such.

If a writer has a buyer and wants negotiating help, one might be able to find an experienced rep willing to fill that function for a small percentage of the money earned, or alternately, if one has the money to pay an intellectual property attorney an hourly rate, that’s worth consideration. I’ll leave aside the intrinsic differences between attorneys and reps, but they do exist and should be considered in making that choice.

As far a contract enforcement is concerned, I’m afraid most writers are shit out of luck. Established publishers are not crooks, but they use their market clout to operate in their own interest and not that of writers. It takes a lot of business, legal, and accounting skill to enforce one’s contracts; if a writer finds oneself in the top 1% where this kind of skill can be purchased, purchase it. Otherwise look at how much cash one is being offered.

[Mike Friedrich was a comics writer of BATMAN, JUSTICE LEAGUE, IRON MAN, KA-ZAR; he founded the first independent publishing company marketing to the comic store sales channel; he created the Marvel Comics “direct sales” department; he founded the first successful business management agency for comics professionals; he co-founded WonderCon, now operated by Comic-Con International; he was the lead legislative lobbyist in Washington, DC and Sacramento, CA for the Graphic Artist Guild; he currently works as a staff representative for UPTE-CWA 9119, a union of research scientists and technical research support staff [including staff research writers and editors] at the University of California, Berkeley. Talk about an alternate universe!]

(This is my most recent piece, July'06)

Hollywood long ago witnessed the emergence of the fanboy director, whose chief motivation seemed to be to honor their favorite precedessors by faithfully echoing their framing, lighting, and acting styles.

Some succeed because they are able to incorporate film tradition into the service of current stories. Many fail because they only capture the surface effects of the past and not the storytelling that gave them their power.

I’m well familiar with this phenomenon in my own pop culture arena of choice, comic books, where the fanboys and fangirls have been in charge for over two decades. I remember well when Neal Adams began to draw his renowned run of Green Lantern comics. In his first issue he purposefully incorporated Green Lantern poses popularized by the originating artist Gil Kane. As a reader I applauded how he established a continuity between the tradition and the new visual trail he was blazing.

Thus what impresses me about SUPERMAN RETURNS is how much of a fanboy movie it is. Not for the Superman comics references it incorporates (Luthor’s yacht and his long white coat, both taken from John Byrne’s mid-80’s Superman revival series), but rather the reincorporation of the 1978 Richard Donner Superman film.

Some of director Bryan Singer’s swipes are obvious, such as the use of Marlon Brando’s voice-over, the title credits, and John Williams’ theme music.

But Singer’s choices are much deeper than that. Brandon Routh seems to have been cast because he could faithfully affect the voice and mannerisms of Christopher Reeves’ version of the character. However this direction continues into the performance of Kevin Spacey, who frequently incorporates Gene Hackman’s interpretation. That veteran Spacey would be more successful than newcomer Routh is not a surprise, but what is interesting is that Singer is obviously insisting on these approaches.

Where Singer’s obsession is best utilized is during the Superman/Lois flying scene. Every Superman fan groaned painfully in the Donner film when Reeve soared for the first time with Margot Kidder, accompanied by a jarring sappy song-poem. Singer takes advantage of his power to re-do that scene “right”. And how he does it is with a small, but incredibly evocative shot of Kate Bosworth’s Lois stepping up on to Superman’s boots in order to be supported. That small scene perfectly captures the intimacy of the characters that no syrupy voiceover could achieve.

Sadly Bosworth’s Lois isn’t directed to have the spark and spunk of Kidder, or even of their joint ancestor, tv’s Noel Neill. In one critical scene when Lois suddenly discovers she’s on Luthor’s yacht, the moment calls for a feisty attitude that the screenwriters and director fail to deliver. Sadly this lack of even basic dimensionality mushes up one of the story’s key characters.

Where Singer shines is in how he incorporates a more subtle influence from superhero comic books, the effective juxtapositioning of extreme changes in perspective. Singer is especially effective in how he cuts to close-ups to help provide emotional weight to a scene, the abovementioned toe-stepping scene being the best example.

Credit must also be given to Singer and his screenwriting colleagues Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris for creating a love triangle I’ve never seen in this genre, and without spoiling it, the resolution admirably avoids generic cliches and successfully achieves a contemporary emotional resonance.

All in all, 3 stars. Well worth a Saturday afternoon matinee with popcorn.

Lee has been strongly suggesting I set this up to post my on-going musings, so here goes.

I'll first post a few recent writings from the last six months or so, plus one from a couple of years ago.