Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorTF
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.41)
    I find it interesting that there is still a need to explain the difference between "That's their's - this is mine".
    Not everyone works in comics but everyone knows the difference between a day job and a long week end.

    I am curious what the minimum audience for a monthly, creator-owned title would be to make it worth the creator's time in the short term. Specifically for the writer who is giving the lions share of the backend to the artist.

    I'm speaking as someone who has just found an artist to begin work on a pitch to Image. If it works out I will do more creator-owned material simply because I don't think I have a good Spider-man or whoever story in me to save my life.

    Warren - I find it interesting comparing your pre-UFF business model of purely creator owned to something Brubaker said in an interview on Newsarama regarding Criminal - that he makes no money from that book - and in the odd month that it does make cash he has that money saved for the Art Team.

    It strikes me that a comic book writer is continuously paying their dues - either because they make their name in the shadow of an iconic character as one of many who've told part on their never ending story or because the majority of the comic buying public stop dead at familiar superheros.
    • CommentAuthorbarrywynn
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.42)
    Just picked up the first trade, FAITH IN MONSTERS, last week. So I'm late to the party. Do you know if there will be another?

    Either way, thanks for a great read. I'd have never believed that anyone would make The Fernis Twins (or rather twin) interesting.
    • CommentAuthorMattAdler
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.43)
    Understanding your comments about creator-owned vs. company-owned, is it your level of enjoyment that determines precisely how long you stick with a company-owned book? Did you ultimately get bored with the concept or characters of Thunderbolts?
    • CommentAuthorMaC
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.44)
    This thread has been really great, I just recently read through Come in Alone on CBR and like many others I was curious about the attitude shift towards the work-for-hire stuff. Always nice to get some insight in the comics world from you Warren. With Astonishing coming up I figured something had to get the axe and your Thunderbolts arc seemed like it was buildings towards an end within a reasonable amount of time. But I'm personally glad you don't spend much time in Marvel's sandbox. I'd much rather have more Fell or another book like Orbiter then "Warren Ellis on whatever."
  1.  (1606.45)
    Hmm. That's an excellent metaphor for it. Thanks for that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorwishlish
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.46)

    2) Chuck Austen started out in creator-owned work.


    And, to be fair, his creator-owned work is quite readable for porn comics. (That's meant to be a compliment, not damnation with faint praise.) His STRIPS and World-something-something superhero porn were no IRONWOOD or BIRDLAND, but they were readable, with interesting characters. You could do worse.

    I liked Warren's THUNDERBOLTS, and I'll miss it when it's gone. Reminded me of reading MARSHALL LAW in the early 90s. Good stuff. Thanks for doing it. Also: you got good work out of Deodato. Deodato's an interesting stylist, but I've seen some terrible frustrations in his storytelling skills manifest with other authors. Didn't see that here, which confirms my long-standing hypothesis that you are excellent at getting the best work out of your artists.
  2.  (1606.47)
    Well, I'm sorry to see you leave Thunderbolts. Your run with Deodato has been really outstanding.

    This discussion reminded me of Warren's old Come In Alone column, which frequently delved into the WFH vs Creator-Owned debate. CIA is very fascinating to read now, 8 years later, as a sort of comics industry time capsule. Warren's thoughts on the then-upcoming Ultimate Marvel line and Joe Quesada's rise to Editor-in-Chief are particularly interesting, given what would end up happening.

    EDIT: Damn, MaC beat me to the CIA citation.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEgon
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.48)
    I hate to say it, but I'm waaaaay late in boarding the Ellis party train. I'd heard of Transmet before, and you seemed to hang out in the same internet circles that I frequent but Thunderbolts was my first actual purchase with your name on it. Now I've got a growing library of your trades and hang out on WhiteChapel all day.

    I don't even think I'd be reading Marvel again if it weren't for seeing Bendis' work on Sam & Twitch and Powers beforehand. It's certainly a better place than when I left it back in `95.
  3.  (1606.49)
    My area has always been mature, non-superhero comics (especially Vertigo), so I know you from way back. I've read some good superhero stories ("The Ultimates"), but I can't stand most of them. No wonder one of my favorite single issues in superhero comics is Marvel Knights Punisher #2, where the Punisher uses Spider-Man as a human shield against the Russian. Of course the story was written by the brilliant Garth Ennis.

    I like the way there's no big gap in quality between your creator-owned work and WFH. Of course your creator-owned work will always be better, but it's nice to see you also do an excellent job on WFH comics too.
    • CommentAuthorkaiho
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.50)
    i think i'll stick to the title after Warren's departure but only because a fellow Greek will possibly take up the writing chores. I'll give him a couple of issues to "convince" me Thunderbolts can take my $3 per month.

    i wish the current creative team could stick for more issues though. It was not enough for me ....
  4.  (1606.51)
    i thought t bolts was always going to be finite for you? either way, its been good, and gage is a pretty good writer, not in the same twisted way, but enough so that ill stick around. good knows i dont read superheroes for their ability to move the medium forward, they are just good rollicking no-budget-constraints fun 98% of the time. if i do ever get it together, i would want to stick to a majority of creator owned action-at the same time would i NOT want to write some maainstream dc/marvel things? are you shitting me? definitiely want to take some of those characters for a run through their paces. i dunno, it just seems strange to have to explain this kinda thing.dont people just know this stuff? this isnt the first time this weekend that i have realized that things i consider to just be assumed knoweledge are definitely not .also, for a good laugh, compare and contrast the thread on here with the newsarama thread. those kids/man children are soooo uptight is fucking amazing.

    ps: since i dont know what the hell a mary sue writer is, is that a good thing?
  5.  (1606.52)
    i thought t bolts was always going to be finite for you?

    Yep.
  6.  (1606.53)
    This conversation on the heels of the Superman rights settlement. The cosmos is listening.

    For what it's worth, a good writer can make a company-owned property and make you forget it isn't really theirs. Consider "NextWave." I can only imagine what fell to the cutting room floor, but that wasn't a B-list Marvel team book, it was an Ellis let loose on superhero camp book. Thank God for it.

    I'm confused on the difference, though. Does Warren OWN Spider Jerusalem? If he wanted to continue Spider's gonzo adventures at Avatar, could he, no problems?
    • CommentAuthorBClayMoore
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008
     (1606.54)
    This is all interesting discussion, as it's something I've been kicking around of late with other creators.

    I've found that, financially speaking, I can make quite a bit more money on well-placed creator-owned projects, and, as a result, it's hard for me to rationalize not pursuing that work with some vigor.

    Of course, the advantages that come attached to work-for-hire are self-evident, and in many ways work-for-hire is much, much less taxing than creator-owned work.

    -BCM
  7.  (1606.55)
    i think i'll stick to the title after Warren's departure but only because a fellow Greek will possibly take up the writing chores

    Heh!
  8.  (1606.56)
    I'm confused on the difference, though. Does Warren OWN Spider Jerusalem? If he wanted to continue Spider's gonzo adventures at Avatar, could he, no problems?

    Darick and I own TRANSMET and all that is included in that. If the terms of the contract were met (and don't ask me what they are because I don't recall), certainly we could do new TRANSMET stories elsewhere.
  9.  (1606.57)
    I'll give him a couple of issues to "convince" me Thunderbolts can take my $3 per month.


    Christos Gage is good writer whose current role seems to be the pinch hitter. If you want a clear idea of what his work is like at its best, take a look at his Union Jack mini.
  10.  (1606.58)
    Christos Gage is good writer whose current role seems to be the pinch hitter.

    A lot of writers come up like that. And Gage, I believe, has been a professional writer for some ten years. I imagine he'll become a main guy in the Brevoort office.
  11.  (1606.59)
    A lot of writers come up like that


    Oh certainly.

    He also wrote some episodes of Law and Order: SVU I think, and I recall enjoying his Stormwatch cop procedural that was part of the last ill-fated Wildstorm relaunch.
    • CommentAuthorMaC
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2008 edited
     (1606.60)
    I am personally wondering when the average fan and the companies themselves will start to realize that it isn't about the characters, but the characterizations.

    I had more of a point, but I'm having trouble wording it coherently now.