29
Stop calling every indie comic an 'Image clone' just because it doesn't have capes
4 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In4 Comments
williams.kim1mo ago
Oh, come on. People really need to look past just the covers and see what these books are actually about. The whole "Image clone" label has been thrown around so much it lost any real meaning years ago. I remember when Image first started in the 90s and it was all about big splashy art and characters running around in pouches and belts. Now folks see any indie book with a weird cover or a creator they haven't heard of and they assume it's just a copy of that old style. It's like they forgot that Image itself has changed completely over the decades and doesn't even publish the same type of stuff it used to. A comic can be a small personal story about grief or a slice of life with monsters and still have wild art without being a clone of anything. Let's give these new creators some credit and actually read a few pages before slapping a lazy label on them.
7
ellis.mia1mo ago
So @williams.kim, do you think the whole "Image clone" thing is just people being lazy or do they actually have a point about SOME books leaning really hard on that old style? I mean, I see your point and I mostly agree, but part of me wonders if the label sticks because a lot of NEW creators are deliberately copying that 90s vibe for attention. It's like they think that's the only way to get noticed in an oversaturated market. But yeah, you're right that Image has moved on and publishes stuff like "Saga" or "Monstress" that are nothing like those early days. I just wish folks would actually READ a few pages before yelling "clone" at everything with a funky cover or a weird character design.
6