Whitechapel - Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go Sat, 25 May 2013 21:39:58 -0700 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 & Feed Publisher Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75991#Comment_75991 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75991#Comment_75991 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:00:04 -0700 vrbtm Misson Statement video @ CBR

Watch the video and discuss or just applaud. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75992#Comment_75992 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75992#Comment_75992 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:02:53 -0700 Chris M Ferguson Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75994#Comment_75994 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75994#Comment_75994 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:08:59 -0700 William Joseph Dunn Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75995#Comment_75995 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75995#Comment_75995 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:09:45 -0700 tonymoore
-T ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75996#Comment_75996 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=75996#Comment_75996 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:09:58 -0700 chris g Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76017#Comment_76017 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76017#Comment_76017 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:30:46 -0700 Egon
Trades are also looking more appetizing too. (Scud Anthology for $30??) And with groups like Act_i_vatE, Zuda, Cloven Hand, and Chemistry Set, or even just plain user blogs, I feel like there's something big almost ready to boil over. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76047#Comment_76047 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76047#Comment_76047 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:41:27 -0700 tonymoore fever anymore, especially not to create new stuff. because the big 2 jobs are the steady jobs and the books that sell well, the paradigm has shifted to make that the tier people "graduate" to. The big two have pretty much abandoned doing anything new, instead choosing to do giant crossovers and stuff, at their most "new," dusting off some D-list fan favorite from the last boom. It seems the majority of the industry is aspiring to walk around in other people's footsteps.

granted this is one of a TON of problems with the industry, many of which are on the business end of things.

-T ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76057#Comment_76057 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76057#Comment_76057 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:10:31 -0700 vrbtm Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76063#Comment_76063 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76063#Comment_76063 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:23:05 -0700 Justin Wrote This
At one point, Kirkman says that there aren't enough new people in the industry, but he also specifically says that the "big names," the people that draw the strong fanbase, should work more with people at Dark Horse or Image after "graduating" from Marvel or DC. To me, this sounds like he doesn't want any "new creators" at DH or Image, just the people who are pulling in the fans.

The newbies he seems to leave for Marvel and DC, except that (as any aspiring artist or especially writer will tell you) DC and Marvel don't want new people. And even if they did, to continue on with Kirkman's thought process, those creators wouldn't be working on books for the fanbase he wants, but for a whole new fanbase. I had a counter argument to that, but I agree that, cyclically, you'd be constantly streaming through fans and creators that would be matched to each other, and constantly getting new audiences for ideas both new and old. Not a bad idea, except for one thing: not everyone wants to do creator-owned work.

A friend of mine is a brilliant artist. Absolutely brilliant. He's so good that I never wanted to write anything for him, because I'd feel like a hack in comparison, but when we finally got around to working together, it was (and is) magic. We could work together forever, and we'd be pretty happy.

There's just one problem: We want Batman. We want Conan. In short, we don't WANT to do creator-owned work, or at least not as much as some people. We want to play in the big sandbox with other people's toys, not for money or popularity, but because that's what we like to do. And, unlike some creators, we don't want to take a big hard shit in the sandbox and leave it for other people to clean up. But it seems like, under the Kirkman system, even if we ever got the shot at the big time, we'd get forced out sooner or later, which isn't much different than the system he seems unhappy about here.

I dunno. Good in theory, especially if the system would make way for new blood and move out some of the hacks who have grown roots at the Big Two, but I think it would also end up hurting everyone else in the process. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76080#Comment_76080 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76080#Comment_76080 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:17:37 -0700 Kosmopolit
The newbies he seems to leave for Marvel and DC, except that (as any aspiring artist or especially writer will tell you) DC and Marvel don't want new people. And even if they did, to continue on with Kirkman's thought process, those creators wouldn't be working on books for the fanbase he wants, but for a whole new fanbase. I had a counter argument to that, but I agree that, cyclically, you'd be constantly streaming through fans and creators that would be matched to each other, and constantly getting new audiences for ideas both new and old. Not a bad idea, except for one thing: not everyone wants to do creator-owned work."

Well if you look at Kirkman's own career he started out self-publishing under the Funkotron label, moved on to Image doing creator-owned books, went on to work on Marvel books which raised his profile further and now seems to be back more or less full time working on his crwator-owned titles.

So I imagine he'd suggest that new comers start with the smaller indies or by self-publishing, as he did. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76084#Comment_76084 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76084#Comment_76084 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:31:10 -0700 Jon Wake
I'm glad Kirkman's pushing in this direction. Can the market support it? Image is held aloft by his work, more often than not, and he's a uniquely talented guy.

As a side note, I've never had the urge to play with other kid's toys. But sometimes that's the nature of the beast--I can't get irritated at Bendis or Warren or Morrison for doing corporate stuff. They get to flex their creative muscles, feed their spawnlings (Morrison buds, I have heard it from many men), and fund their creator owned stuff. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76115#Comment_76115 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76115#Comment_76115 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:14:01 -0700 buzzorhowl
There's just one problem: We want Batman. We want Conan. In short, we don't WANT to do creator-owned work, or at least not as much as some people. We want to play in the big sandbox with other people's toys, not for money or popularity, but because that's what we like to do. And, unlike some creators, we don't want to take a big hard shit in the sandbox and leave it for other people to clean up. But it seems like, under the Kirkman system, even if we ever got the shot at the big time, we'd get forced out sooner or later, which isn't much different than the system he seems unhappy about here.


I think the idea that you have, that the really great shit to do is work on 75 year old properties, is a great deal of the problem. I don't want to turn into a jerk and start saying "Don't you have any ideas of your own" or whatever, but at the same time, surely some completely new idea that you might have for a character you thought up yourself is not only more original and interesting but also of greater worth to the art form of comics as a whole... right? You see my point, don't you? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76118#Comment_76118 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76118#Comment_76118 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:32:31 -0700 Jacen
More creator owned work is not the answer. More REALLY FUCKING GOOD creator owned work is.

As a side note I'd like to add that I think these giant corporate crossover books are the best thing that ever happened to the indie market. As the smart fans get sick of seeing the same magic trick over and over they start looking to the periphery for the new ideas. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76121#Comment_76121 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76121#Comment_76121 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:36:01 -0700 Jeff Owens Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76130#Comment_76130 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76130#Comment_76130 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:56:11 -0700 tedcroland
As the smart fans get sick of seeing the same magic trick over and over they start looking to the periphery for the new ideas.

A larger problem is while you are right that people get tired of the crossovers, rather than replacing them with other titles...they just stop. From working at a comic shop for a few years, I can tell you more people came in getting fed up with events and dropping everything but a few core books (usually being niche books like Daredevil or Brubaker's Captain America). So you see a downturn in a flooded market because of these crossovers that have garnered attention because they're, say, on The Colbert Report or a flash article on Yahoo's front page. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76138#Comment_76138 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76138#Comment_76138 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:23:42 -0700 Neil Ofsteel
I've come to the conclusion that if, god forbid, I should have kids, they're going to have to read the same old Carl Barks and Green Hornet reprints I managed to dig up when I was a kid. Until their 12, then it's all Vertigo if they know what's good for them! ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76207#Comment_76207 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76207#Comment_76207 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:11:46 -0700 Brendan McGinley
That said, personally, I do want to own the ashes of my hours. But my stance could change when I have a family. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76260#Comment_76260 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76260#Comment_76260 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:34:56 -0700 Justin Wrote This You see my point, don't you?

I do see the point, and yeah, there are ideas of my own knocking around the brainpan. However, if I have a chance to do "Justin & Josh's Science Fiction Fugitive Action Hour" or "Batman," I know what I'm going to take.

And while I love SFF in my heart of hearts, I'm also not arrogant enough to think its anything new or brilliant or that it's going to change comics as we know it, because when you get down to it, almost everything has been done before. There is no "completely new idea." No matter how original you might think something is the day you think of it, I can promise you that there are three more variations on it running around somewhere, cobbled together from pieces of other great things. What matters to me is that they're good, solid, entertaining stories that I want to share with the widest audience possible.

I guess what I'm saying is that Kirkman doesn't seem to like the current "graduation" paradigm, but his system doesn't seem that much different overall, it just has a different endpoint. But that's just my viewpoint, and I'm always happy to be wrong. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76261#Comment_76261 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76261#Comment_76261 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:51:41 -0700 buzzorhowl Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76270#Comment_76270 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76270#Comment_76270 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:12:26 -0700 Justin Wrote This
Not everyone wants to be king of the creator-owned world. Some people, like me, just want a fun job that gives some security. There comes a time in life for some people when you have to make the trade: do you want to take the chance, or do you want to make sure the people you love are taken care of?

Sometimes, yes, you can have both. Kirkman got it, and if Kirkman is arguing for that for more people, so much the better. But until that time comes, there are some people who want (or even need) to go with the sure thing. Judging them as lesser creators because of that isn't right or fair. Some people just want different things from life.

I'm not saying that it's better or worse. I'm not trying to be the spanner in the works here. I full-well realize that I'm in the minority when it comes to liking the corporate comics, but to look down on them as less creative or unoriginal is cutting yourself off from the things that made creator-owned comics or "new ideas"possible. 'Watchmen" might not have existed without the Charlton heroes, after all. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76272#Comment_76272 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76272#Comment_76272 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:24:41 -0700 Justin Wrote This
More creator owned work is not the answer. More REALLY FUCKING GOOD creator owned work is.

Jacen seems to have traveled across the same convention floor I have over the last few years. There's so much garbage out there, and everyone thinks that their shit is wonderful. It's not. Wise up and admit it to yourself. Do a project that is worthwhile, instead of just trash that your mom tells you is good.

"See, it's the X-men, see, but they're black." or " Look, my book has, like, ninjas in it. And they fight zombies, right?"

Yeah, that's doing the industry a world of good, and, as Jacen said, just making every retailer think that creator-owned equals shit. I can't even stand to walk through the independent booths at my local con anymore. It saves me the trouble of repeatedly saying, "You're fucking serious?"

That said, there is a rare find (Sentinels, The Black Coat), but among the hoardes of other crap... well, you get the idea. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76277#Comment_76277 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76277#Comment_76277 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:46 -0700 buzzorhowl
Some people, like me, just want a fun job that gives some security. There comes a time in life for some people when you have to make the trade: do you want to take the chance, or do you want to make sure the people you love are taken care of?


To me, this seems like a bit of a copout, especially because it fails to acknowledge the fact that writing for Batman is just as much of a crapshoot as any other job in the creative arts. Honestly, if it's stability and security you want, you should hang up the writing gig and go work in an office, because writing is never going to give you security. I mean, unless you end up being the second coming of Alan Moore, and very few people ever taste that kind of success.

I full-well realize that I'm in the minority when it comes to liking the corporate comics, but to look down on them as less creative or unoriginal is cutting yourself off from the things that made comics what they are today. 'Watchmen" might not have existed without the Charlton heroes, after all.


I'm not arguing with you because I think corporate comics are less good than creator-owned comics. I don't think Kirkman is coming at the discussion from a place of making a value judgment on that sort of thing, and I'm certainly not. What's being said here is this--it's better for you, the writer, to be working on your own ideas instead of someone else's ideas that were originally conceived 75 years ago, strictly from a financial point of view. Kirkman is having success right now with the Walking Dead and Invincible that he couldn't achieve if he'd done the same amount of writing as work for hire, because since he owns the rights to the characters and the concepts, the kind of money that comes in from movie options and etc. goes to him instead of to the company he writes for. Furthermore, it's better from a creative point of view, because instead of everyone continuing to consider the ideas that a few guys had in the late 30s/early 40s to be the best possible ideas to found comics work on, everyone's bringing in completely new and different ideas and expanding the amount of things that there are to read about out there in the comics world. Seriously, let's take something Kirkman mentions in the video--"Moby Dick". What if 90% of the prose writers who'd started publishing novels in the last 150 years had spent their time working on Melville's ideas? Just writing the continuing adventures of Captain Ahab and Ishmael, or the continuing adventures of Bartleby the Scrivener, or the continuing adventures of characters created by another similar writer at that point in time, like Dickens' Oliver Twist and David Copperfield? Don't you think the world of prose fiction would be poorer for it? If guys like F. Scott Fitzgerald had mostly just written work for hire based on characters created 75 years before? That's Kirkman's point. The medium of comics is poorer for the fact that a lot of really great writers and artists are doing work on characters created when our grandparents were children instead of on their own ideas.

And by the way, when you say "to look down on them [corporate-owned comics] as less creative or unoriginal is cutting yourself off from the things that made comics what they are today", you're just flat out wrong. There is less creativity involved in writing a story about Batman than there is in writing a story about characters you thought up yourself. That's just an objective fact. And giving a certain title its respect as a classic of the genre, as a foundation stone for everything that's come after it, does not require us to continue to churn out product directly related to that original story until time immemorial. Every other creative medium seems to recognize this; novelists aren't still writing about Moby Dick, filmmakers aren't still making movies about Charles Foster Kane, etc. The things that made comics what they are today are still out there whether we endlessly recreate them or not, and I would argue that yet another new Batman story is actually less reverent of the spirit in which Batman was created than you writing your own brand new story with your own characters. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76278#Comment_76278 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76278#Comment_76278 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:47:50 -0700 buzzorhowl
The best point here, though, comes from Jacen:

More creator owned work is not the answer. More REALLY FUCKING GOOD creator owned work is.

Jacen seems to have traveled across the same convention floor I have over the last few years.There's so much garbage out there, and everyone thinks that their shit is wonderful. It's not.


I almost said something when Jacen said that, but decided not to. Now that it's being repeated, though, I feel the need to get in here.

Ted Sturgeon said that 90% of everything is shit, and he was and is right. The fact that Jacen wants to see more REALLY FUCKING GOOD creator-owned work is only right and natural--that's what everyone wants to see.

What I think gets neglected in that discussion is just how forgiving people so often are of total trash that comes out featuring corporate-owned characters. People are way more willing to read the same mediocre crap over and over again just because it has Wolverine in it. I'm occasionally susceptible to that sort of fanboy nonsense myself--I will certainly admit that I've bought a whole bunch of the Spider-Man "Brand New Day" issues, although that's just about to come to a screeching halt--but it's totally backwards. We, as readers who want to see good stories, should be LESS forgiving of the corporate-owned titles, rather than more forgiving. When someone comes up with a creator-owned title and it's just OK, they should probably get a bit MORE slack than a just-OK issue of X-Men book #17 gets, rather than less, because more of the work there is their own that they came up with themselves.

But whatever--leave all that aside. If you're going to hold creator-owned comics to a rigorous standard, demand that they be great rather than just OK, that's fine with me. But you need to hold your corporate-owned comics to that same standard, and you really owe it to yourself and the indusctry of comics as a whole to maybe try something new and creator-owned with the few bucks a month you save by not wasting it on creator-owned comics that you know you won't really enjoy. Which brings us back to what Kirkman is saying (and what Warren said in "Come In Alone" 10 years ago*)--doing this is what's necessary to save the comics industry. Otherwise it's all gonna be gone in another 30 or 40 years. No one wants that. So how do we avoid it? I think Kirkman has the right idea.

*-honestly, most of my talking points in this thread have been shamelessly ripped off from "Come In Alone", so my apologies to Warren for the plagiarism of his arguments. I figured it was in service of a good cause. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76285#Comment_76285 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76285#Comment_76285 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:15:43 -0700 Justin Wrote This If you're going to hold creator-owned comics to a rigorous standard, demand that they be great rather than just OK, that's fine with me. But you need to hold your corporate-owned comics to that same standard...

There we go. Now we're on to something I'll get behind.

As much as I like comics that come from the big guys, I demand perfection for my three bucks a month. It has to hit on all cylinders for me to keep buying it month after month after month. I buy nothing for the sole fact of "I have all of this book from issue #1 on." I buy what appeals to me, corporate or creator owned. "Iron Fist" has gone to crap in one issue thanks to some poor artwork, so it's gone from my pull list. "Checkmate" bought the farm as soon as the writing changed hands.

In my opinion, which hangs on yours, you should have a higher standard for your books because you reach such a vast market, and because people are willing to buy your book just because it has Batman on the cover. Unfortunately, there are a lot of books that cop out and phone it in. I don't think that's right, and I don't think anyone should do that. You have a responsibility to the reader first and foremost, which goes back to my "I just want to tell good stories" comment earlier. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76289#Comment_76289 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76289#Comment_76289 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:20:02 -0700 Justin Wrote This Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76295#Comment_76295 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76295#Comment_76295 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:43:39 -0700 stevewallace
But they're all trying to emulate that. That's where the argument for originality dies.

Yeah but there's a big difference between trying to emulate and reusing the same characters over and over. Sure there are plenty of books that use a similar voice as Moby Dick but are working on wildly different plots and characters (though themes might stay the same).

Also what I really got out of this is that Marvel and DC should think about refocusing on stand alone all ages stories that new readers can work into. Honestly, I think this is the most important issues that he brought up and it's one that isn't getting much talk. It's not an issue of having to few creators, it's to few new readers. Kids just aren't picking up books like they used to and it's understandable. Both companies have these tiny lines of stand alone stories, Adventures for Marvel and Johnny DC for DC. The fact that they have such established characters would allow them to move to a one and done format for their books. Image, Dark Horse, Avatar etc. don't really have this option because they have to rely much more on in depth storytelling to drag a reader from issue to issue for their relatively unknown characters.. Spiderman can sell books simply by being Spiderman. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76307#Comment_76307 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76307#Comment_76307 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:20:38 -0700 buzzorhowl Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76316#Comment_76316 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76316#Comment_76316 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:01:51 -0700 Jacen Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76332#Comment_76332 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76332#Comment_76332 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:05:50 -0700 hectorlima The Old Bastard's Manifesto, hahaha, but it's cool that someone comes out to remind everyone of that from time to time.

nothing wrong with balancing Work For Hire and Creator Owned. the former pays the monthly bills, the latter the mortgage \ kid's College \ pension plan etc. at least that's what they say, i've only spent money on this so far. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76377#Comment_76377 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76377#Comment_76377 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:21:22 -0700 mercurialblonde
Where my problem is, is that if Image shifts it's focus to these big creators, in particular to wooing them over...how much resources are they going to expend on newer less established acts.

What I'm worried about is Image is going to turn into a publisher that just puts out books like War Heroes because of the names on the cover, while ignoring books like Phonogram, Pirates of Coney Island, Cassanova and Nightly News. I guess some of those creators post here and could speak to these fears(though I wonder how openly--I guess Fraction doesn't have to give a fuck about Image now...) but will we still see books like these? What about guys like Rick Remender who are writing great creator owned books--is this direction why he moved publishers for Fear Agent?

Am I paranoid? Because it seems like Image is trying to become the thing they despise, and in their desire for bigger and better, they're just going to get bigger, but lose a lot of what makes them special.

Also what was with the dramatic music?
And to some extent wasn't this just a ten minute advertisement for Image? Moreso than say...a manifesto. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76383#Comment_76383 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76383#Comment_76383 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:50:59 -0700 tedcroland Where my problem is, is that if Image shifts it's focus to these big creators, in particular to wooing them over...how much resources are they going to expend on newer less established acts.

Seems like a valid concern, but remember that Kirkman himself was given a break when Image picked up Battle Pope, and then picked up Invincible and Walking Dead, both of which were books expected to tank.

I don't think Kirkman is going to forget the little guy, though I'm not entirely sure that he will keep that perspective. Then again, his Marvel work has almost universally been poorly received like Ultimate X-men, or just didn't sell, like Ant Man (which was actually very good, for an Ant Man series). ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76391#Comment_76391 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76391#Comment_76391 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:15:17 -0700 Doctor Pockets
And why doesn't Matt Fraction have to give a fuck about Image now? Aren't they still the publishers of Casanova? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76399#Comment_76399 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76399#Comment_76399 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:41:53 -0700 stevewallace ... They are? I hadn't heard anything about them switching to upfront, where did you hear about that?

@mercurialblonde
I don't know, I'm really not getting the feeling that Image is making a move like that. I just don't see guys like Valentino going for something like that. It's always felt to me like the editors and partners at Image really enjoy the breadth of their catalog and want it to stay fresh and appealing. I don't know someone like Rantz or B. Clay Moore (isn't he over her too?) would probably have a slightly better bead on the situation that I do. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76401#Comment_76401 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76401#Comment_76401 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:54:40 -0700 madmatt213
Also what was with the dramatic music?

It's Track 28 off of Ghosts IV by NiN. I'm assuming they used it because it was published under a Creative Commons license, but as far as I can tell the song was never credited in the video or text.

@shawnclark
And why doesn't Matt Fraction have to give a fuck about Image now? Aren't they still the publishers of Casanova?

Yes, as far as we all know they are. I'm assuming mercurialblonde was referring to Fraction scoring the Marvel-exclusive contract months ago. I certainly hope Fraction begins writing a new "album" of CASANOVA when he frees some time in his busy schedule.
------------
In regards to CASANOVA, Kirkman should also be taking a cue from that book and FELL by embracing the idea of shaking up the universal format of the monthly floppies. What I would give to have a larger number of slim $2 "Wall of Sound" comics on the rack, or $4 comics that actually have more than 22 pages of content (sequential art, Q&A, articles, etc...not ads for other comics by the publisher). ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76402#Comment_76402 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76402#Comment_76402 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:59:19 -0700 madmatt213
It's always felt to me like the editors and partners at Image really enjoy the breadth of their catalog and want it to stay fresh and appealing.

Good point! It would certainly appear that they aren't just shooting for big-name creators, what with the release of POPGUN VOL 2 (comic "mixtape" of content from mostly lesser-known names) just a few weeks ago. From what I recall, the first volume did pretty well, and that didn't have Kirkman's name anywhere on it. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76414#Comment_76414 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76414#Comment_76414 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:52:37 -0700 mercurialblonde Hey, I'd be happy to be wrong. It's just the sense I got from the places where Kirkman was putting emphasis. To me a large chunk of his message was that he wanted image to be where you go when you're established, AFTER you've worked at Marvel or DC, as opposed to being the place where you make your name.

Another problem with that system, and let's use Jason Aaron as an example. What if he started at Marvel, and got stuck with a book like his Ghost Rider, which is kind of a lower level book that not that many people really pay much attention to. Does he then have the opportunity to make a Scalped? What about Hickman? What if his style keeps him out of the limelight in superheroes--is because he can't make a great mini-series starring Catman something that would prohibit Image from making a Nightly News book?

The current model is so much more open it would seem to outsiders. But the tweeks that Kirkman is suggesting, would breed a lot of nepotism I think. And a great deal of groupthink. As it stands someone can come flying in out of nowhere and put out a crazy book like a Cassanova or a Nightly News. But if Image switched to only taking creators after they've worked at the big two, then that can't happen. We get lots of War Heroes, and not much in the way of new goodness from fresh faces.

A lot of those people Kirkman wants to target HAVE done creator-owned books already, and many of them have been working in the industry for ten years or more. And if that's what Image wants to become, then why would you read image over say Avatar?

And then is this something that image can really compete on? Isn't something like Icon a pre-emptive strike against Kirkman trying to steal top creators? What advantages would Brubaker get by having Criminal come out on Image? Is Icon an easier lateral move for someone already working at Marvel? How creator owned is Vertigo? Like does Brian K. Vaughn own the rights to Y: The last Man? Or does Jason Aaron own Scalped?

I don't know. I have a lot of questions, and I feel like a lot of the discussion has skewed to talk about capes and the big two, when to me this is all about Image and Kirkman's vision for the company.

Oh and the reason people are more forgiving with corporate owned icons, is because those characters are bigger than whatever story the writer is currently on. Those characters have cache in the culture. They're very much the american pop-culture pantheon. They've really got nothing to do with creator-owned versus company owned. They are more about larger patterns in culture to do with our archetypes and the stories we want to pass down through the ages. There have been superhero stories in every civilization. Comics are just the best medium for capturing the iconography of them for most americans. Or I guess the idea of the comic medium is the best for capturing that iconography. But just look at how these things are doing in movie theaters. These characters have an unreal power over and within the culture that supercedes this creator-owned/company owned arguement. And I would think for a lot of creators working with that kind of power is pretty intoxicating. Especially if you grew up very into these characters to boot. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76419#Comment_76419 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76419#Comment_76419 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:18:58 -0700 mercurialblonde What is the role of the modern day comic shop? It seems most of the comic discussion happens online these days. Comic book shops are unfriendly to kids and women. Why is the industry so tied to these stores? A lot of these stores don't even showcase comics anymore. Most of the "comic shops" in my town are really about action figures, records, and other novelty items. It's more like a glorified garage sale than anything.

So what is the advantage of these stores, versus say...putting a comic book rack in every Barnes and Noble--or doing a comic version of iTunes?

That's a little anxilliary to the discussion of creator-owned stuff, but I am kind of talking about distribution here. Doesn't the distrbution that comics do, kind of cater to a certain kind of demographic, which shapes kind of what books sell and what books don't?

At a Barnes and Noble for instance, if I have this comic book rack, and the general book store nerd has the choice between buying random superhero book that isn't Batman, Superman, or Spider-man(like say it's Blue Beetle level hero). Are they going to pick the capes book, or are they going to pick something like Doktor Sleepless or something like Mouse Guard? I guess what I'm getting at is, isn't WHERE comics are being sold kind of driving a lot of the idiosyncries of the medium that people are arguing about? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76422#Comment_76422 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76422#Comment_76422 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:23:35 -0700 tedcroland So what is the advantage of these stores, versus say...putting a comic book rack in every Barnes and Noble--or doing a comic version of iTunes?

Elevating the sale of the medium from browse and buy to a conversation, or a friendship. Having a person that's knowledgeable and interested in the medium selling the books strengthens the industry. When I worked at a shop, if I sold Hellboy to someone, I had a stack of ten other titles I could turn around and sell to them then and there.

That's why you have specialty shops. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76424#Comment_76424 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76424#Comment_76424 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:32:41 -0700 Jacen
Your question about comic shops and distribution alternatives is a huge can of worms. We may have another thread about that somewhere. It comes up every year pretty much. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76425#Comment_76425 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76425#Comment_76425 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:50:42 -0700 mercurialblonde Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76426#Comment_76426 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76426#Comment_76426 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:51:01 -0700 stevewallace I don't know, that wasn't what I picked up from him from this video. I don't think he's advocating you start at Marvel/DC. He specifically talks about coming in through indies, working your mid career at Marvel/DC to gain name recognition and then moving back out to the indies to do your creator owned work. I don't see the idea of successful creator owned work being the pinnacle of a comic book career being all that bad a thing really. If you get there without going through Marvel/DC, well bully for you! I also don't think working for Marvel/DC is that bad a thing if that's what you want.

I think this follow up interview actually fleshes out a lot of what you guys are questioning. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76428#Comment_76428 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76428#Comment_76428 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:04:02 -0700 mercurialblonde Well isn't that what everyone is already doing? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76430#Comment_76430 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76430#Comment_76430 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:18:21 -0700 chris g
I also agree with him about making mainstream comics appropriate for kids. Grim Fin Headed Arse-rape doesn't belong amongst the justice league. Things need to go more in the All-Star Superman direction and put out intelligently written stories free of continuity that can be enjoyed by any age group. Or not. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76433#Comment_76433 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76433#Comment_76433 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:19:40 -0700 ike%morph
Some time ago, (infamous) Micah Wright wrote this:

"I know what I'd do if I were Joe Quesada. I'd have a copy of Garth Ennis' FURY printed in Publisher's Trade Size format, (not the comic industry's idiotic trade-paperback size book which stick out amongst my hardbacks and paperbacks like sore thumbs, but rather the smaller, 8"x 5" format found in fine bookstores everywhere). Then I'd print "Military Fiction" on the spine and NOT have a comic book illustration on the front, but rather something along the lines of a half-burnt flag draped over a coffin and a machine gun atop that.

Then I'd send it out to all of the Tom Clancy-type writers of Military Fiction out there and try to get some killer cover blurs from the notables of that field.

Finally, I'd send it out to Barnes & Noble where the bookstore workers are going to take one look at the cover photo of a gun and bullet-punched flag, check the spine, and file it under "E" for "Ennis & Robertson" smack dab in the middle of the "Military Fiction" section... WHERE IT WILL BE FOUND AND BOUGHT BY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN READING MILITARY FICTION WHO WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO A COMIC STORE TO FIND IT. "

And I'm pretty sure Mr. Ellis wrote something on the same vein on his Come In Alone columns but I don't have the link with me (sorry).

This is what I'd LOVE to see: Comics by AUTHOR and OUT of the "Comics Isle" at Book shops.

Sure, today we all can go to Borders and find the latest Love & Rockets trade, but to me it still feels too Ghetto-ized. It still kinda reeks of fanboy's little clubs even at the most exclusive-modern-hyped Bookstore chain... I mean, for every L&R book there are what? 50 Marvel-DC trades? I'm NOT saying there SHOULD"T be Trademark comics at the bookshops; those, keep 'em close to the kiddie isle. I'm talking about getting Authorial Comics a push over them damn TM trades. And please note that I'm not talking about forming "Author Elites" either. I'd just love to see these works getting a little more respect and shinning spotlight that usual.

I don't know if this could be a reality anytime soon (as it has been noted by others above, there are still LOTS of work to be done), but I surely hope it is the case. I think that this MIGHT be one of comics' last initiation rites. Everybody talks about Graphic Novels, let's see if they can be seen as a little more than just collected Spider-Man comics.

And yes: there is the question of money... I'd be an hypocrite if I say that TM Comics' money isn't alluring, nor any author should flee at the sight of corporate dough. I think that what people like Ellis, Vaughn, Morrison and even Kirkman do is a good balancing act. (There others of course, but these are the ones that popped in my mind right now). But I think that at the end of the day, THEIR personal projects fill a bigger spot in their agendas (unless your ultimate goal is to "graduate to Marvel", then you're on your own).

On the other hand, I don't think trademark comics will go the dinosaur route any time soon, if ever. I just don't see it: there's still too much money in them (not to mention nostalgia). It just that it's too marginalized to be taken seriously (in the creative-artsy kinda way, if you know what I mean).

YES: Authorial Comics SHOULD be the future... We ALL should work for this.

i. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76441#Comment_76441 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76441#Comment_76441 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:26:06 -0700 mlpeters
Um... Creator owned stuff can be "trademarked" by the author/authors. Getting a registered trademark is expensive and is not as often done by those outside of corporations, but it certainly CAN be done.

I didn't see the video, being on dial-up, but I get the gist. I share some of mercurialblonde's concerns, but it's one of those things where we just have to wait and see how it pans out -- and if we have books looking for a home, maybe show them to Image before a wave of big names grab all the attention...

The industry, as a whole is very different from the days when the original version of Image was formed -- I don't think we're apt to see a repeat of that scenario, except, perhaps on a few isolated books (what's a rule without exceptions?). ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76523#Comment_76523 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76523#Comment_76523 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:25:06 -0700 Doctor Pockets
I should clarify - that's really only a rumor at this point, and the rumor is that it would be only for certain creators on certain projects.

It's been talked about here. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76556#Comment_76556 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76556#Comment_76556 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:27:40 -0700 mercurialblonde Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76563#Comment_76563 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76563#Comment_76563 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:36:39 -0700 warrenellis Just as a general question, why do Moore, Ellis, Ennis and them put their books out on Avatar instead of Image? What does Avatar do that makes it a more conducive home for these creators than Image?

1) Avatar pay money up front.

2) Everyone benefits from more than one healthy independent publisher, I feel. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76565#Comment_76565 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76565#Comment_76565 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:39:49 -0700 mercurialblonde Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76575#Comment_76575 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76575#Comment_76575 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:17:59 -0700 JuanNavarro Heard he might write Shadowhawk, that'll be interesting to say the least.
I have no problems to "Make Mine IMAGE" ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76579#Comment_76579 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76579#Comment_76579 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:28:49 -0700 mercurialblonde Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76581#Comment_76581 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76581#Comment_76581 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:31:00 -0700 Doctor Pockets Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76586#Comment_76586 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76586#Comment_76586 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:44:25 -0700 stevewallace No not at all, there are a lot of people who feel Marvel/DC are the pinnacle of a career. That once you get there and get an exclusive you're sitting at the highest point.

@JuanNavarro
I really don't think an Image Universe is that good an idea. As they have it now things can cross pollinate but there are just to many books with far to many flavors to even come close to getting something like that. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76587#Comment_76587 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76587#Comment_76587 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:45:07 -0700 ike%morph
"Um... Creator owned stuff can be "trademarked" by the author/authors. Getting a registered trademark is expensive and is not as often done by those outside of corporations, but it certainly CAN be done."

Oh yes, I know. I meant Corporate-owned Trademarks: Spider-Man, Batman and the such... I also know trademarking properties can be a pain in the ass (money and paperwork-wise; that's why a mentioned the "balancing act" that some authors do with their OWN projects when they do them WITH said corporations (or even outside the Big Two: Avatar, Image, etc)

i. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76590#Comment_76590 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76590#Comment_76590 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:56:12 -0700 mercurialblonde Who? Name some names. I was trying to think of a list earlier of writers who have gotten to Marvel/DC and who have stopped doing creator owned stuff. Geoff Johns was the only name that readily sprang to mind. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76597#Comment_76597 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76597#Comment_76597 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:17:00 -0700 vrbtm mercurialblonde:

I think the issue isn't so much an absolute abandonment of New Ideas, but rather putting most of the effort towards the corporate IP. In that case, Brian Michael Bendis is definitely on the list. JMS for an amount of time was owned by the company. Terry Moore. Judd Winick. Time will tell if Fraction and Brubaker will arc towards their original stuff (I love Five Fists above all) or their new success at Marvel. My point is that it's not about leaving creator-owned original work for corporate stuff, only putting it on the backburner. I'm not expecting a new POWERS next week anyway.

You know who rules? Brian K. Vaughan. He cut his teeth in low-profile Marvel stuff, then did some great original stuff, then had 2 or 3 years as big gun at Marvel, and now he's out on his own again. From my perspective, Warren has done that 3 or 4 times now. I think that's a good attitude: no absolutes. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76628#Comment_76628 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76628#Comment_76628 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:53:48 -0700 stevewallace While vrbtm named some good examples of current creators I'm talking more about the view of not only a lot of fans but a lot of new creators. A lot of artists and writers coming into the business see Marvel/DC as the peak. They want to do their indy stuff in order to get there and get on an exclusive. Understand this is all just anecdotal from talking to folks at cons and on different creator-centric forums. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76636#Comment_76636 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76636#Comment_76636 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:22:29 -0700 Jonathan Hickman work equation should always be "who benefits?"

By my math, it should always be me.

The argument then becomes about trade-offs, making good deals and balancing short and long-term goals -- i.e. properly managing your career. In my mind, if you own nothing then your eventual worth is nothing. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76653#Comment_76653 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76653#Comment_76653 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:17:35 -0700 JuanNavarro I'm not for an Image Universe like DC pompous windbag universe, I'm thinking more in the snese of branding and a bit cohesion. I'm at a loss a lot of times when looking at thier books and knowing what is what at times, and where I might be picking up stuff when.

@mercurialblonde
I think it's like the band formula some artists have: Make it big do a record, and then break up and start something else, before they pigeon hole the fuck out of you.
In the long run, Marvel and DC need guys like Vaughn, Morrison, and Ellis to shake their books up, to inject new ideas and directions.

Ad for new creator versus old, I think you just need to see the roster that they have made out there. Some folks, like Act-I-Vate, The Meathaus guys, and Moderntales produce amazing work all on their own, and to come in and tap them for thier talents and even better for their ideas, would be excellent place to look. You don't HAVE to go to Marvel and DC, but since they are in the printing comics business and that what Image is doing, you may look and see what they are doing and bring it in to sell some books.

A little of both could be great, so that the big creators help fend the new creators and bring in more ideas. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76717#Comment_76717 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76717#Comment_76717 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:55:59 -0700 Kosmopolit
At times some of the Image studios seem more focused on selling movie options. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76751#Comment_76751 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76751#Comment_76751 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:05:11 -0700 Rantz What I'm worried about is Image is going to turn into a publisher that just puts out books like War Heroes because of the names on the cover, while ignoring books like Phonogram, Pirates of Coney Island, Cassanova and Nightly News. I guess some of those creators post here and could speak to these fears(though I wonder how openly--I guess Fraction doesn't have to give a fuck about Image now...) but will we still see books like these? What about guys like Rick Remender who are writing great creator owned books--is this direction why he moved publishers for Fear Agent?

Am I paranoid? Because it seems like Image is trying to become the thing they despise, and in their desire for bigger and better, they're just going to get bigger, but lose a lot of what makes them special.

You're paranoid. At least based off my involvement with Image, and my discussions with Kirkman. I think Kirkman's point (and I agree with him on this point) is that there needs to be a 'sea change' in the makup of what books dominate the industry, and by effect, what the average pedestrian thinks of when they think of 'comics'. Hickman, Fraction, Gillen, McKelvie, Brandon, etc, etc have all done great work as establishing themselves as forces to be reckoned with via their creator-owned books at Image. But a large part of the comic-buying audience have never (and will never) buy Nightly News, Casanova, Phonogram, etc. but will buy X-Men, and so on.

In order for the perception to change (by Kirkman's arguement) there needs to be an Image-like exodus of the 'top talent' at the big two... the people who create the big books for them, in order to change perceptions.

That's Kirkman's arguement, and I agree with it in some parts, and disagree with others, but in terms of making Image into a bastion powerhouse that no longer nurtures new talent/ideas/books? I don't see that happening for many reasons ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76756#Comment_76756 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76756#Comment_76756 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:24:50 -0700 mercurialblonde In order for the perception to change (by Kirkman's arguement) there needs to be an Image-like exodus of the 'top talent' at the big two... the people who create the big books for them, in order to change perceptions.

I still don't understand how that will do anything but help Image's bottom line in the short term. I don't see what that'd do for comics in general. You're just shifting names around. You're not changing anything with the audience that has access to comics.

The problem with comics is as big and wide as distribution and marketing. Because clearly according to the hollywood boxoffice numbers, and the number of top TV shows comic writers are a part of--people want to buy the works of these talented people. But I think something most comic fans don't really appreciate is how difficult it is to get a comic unless you are really deterimined to do so. You aren't going to accidentally brush into a comic anywhere at a store, and pick it up, besides the relagated graphic novel section ghettoized in most book stores. But the monthlies and all of that. You have to go to a comic book store exclusively for that. No other medium requires that. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76760#Comment_76760 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76760#Comment_76760 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:15:55 -0700 Rantz I still don't understand how that will do anything but help Image's bottom line in the short term. I don't see what that'd do for comics in general. You're just shifting names around. You're not changing anything with the audience that has access to comics.

As noted, that's Kirkman's thesis. Some of which I agree with, other parts which I do not.

In terms of who it helps, since he noted that creators should do it, regardless of whether with Image or not, it helps (if the books are successful) the creator's bottom line. Having a book in trade or HC on the shelves, month after month, that you as the creator get the lion's share of the revenue from, instead of getting a small percentage of it after the publisher take the majority cut giving you an 'incentive bonus' or whatever... that's ongoing passive income for the creator and (again, if the book is successful) that's a huge benefit to the creator.

Of course, distribution channels (and the lack thereof) is a MASSIVE part of the equation. It's not a single-fix issue. If all superhero books vanished tomorrow, the industry wouyld not suddenly be thriving anymore than spiderman being in every grocery store would 'save comics'. Statements that 'this will save comics' often are reductive and simplistic.

Format, accesibility, availability, price point, varied content for varied demographics, visibility and acknowledgement of the books over the Films and TV that they spawn, people on the 'business' side of comics having a core failure of knowledge when it comes to running a business effectively, plus a slew of others... All of this stuff has to be addressed if we (collectively) want to see comics THRIVE (growth market rather than stagnation or decline... there's a nutty thought).

Kirkman's addressing only one part of it, but at least he IS addressing one part of it. More people with his market visibility need to 'step up' and do likewise with the other areas. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76762#Comment_76762 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76762#Comment_76762 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:22:10 -0700 Kosmopolit
I don;th tihnk is nearly as real a problem as many comics fans seem to think.

DC is apparently expecting to sell one million copies of Watchmen between now and the release of the movie.

link ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76781#Comment_76781 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76781#Comment_76781 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:35:50 -0700 mlpeters
Where do you live? If it's not in a decent sized city, comics only exist if you order them online. I'm in rural Michigan and I had to drive three towns over to even get a copy of Heavy Metal last time I was in it -- and that was at a college book store. You have to drive another 50 miles to visit a comics shop.

Ten years ago, the local grocery stores both had comics and so did both of the town's drugstores -- not necessarily good comics, but people were exposed to the magic that is words and pictures.

Now, when I mention I sometimes draw comics, locals (with good reason) say, "Do they still make those? I thought they were just movies now." ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76782#Comment_76782 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76782#Comment_76782 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:45:20 -0700 Kosmopolit
How do the graphic novel sections in the local bookshops compare with 10 years ago? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76783#Comment_76783 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76783#Comment_76783 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:50:25 -0700 mercurialblonde
You can't do that now. If I was born ten years later, I would not have had the access to comics needed to be exposed to them as a kid. Which as someone said farther up, is a diffrent conversation entirely I guess.

But for me, if we're talking about "saving comics" access is always the first thing I think of. And how limited access is to comics right now(the internet is helping though).

This whole shuffling of names between companies, really doesn't change much for me. And I'm not sure how that would result in "saving comics". The issue is still going to be the same.

I also dispute that comics need "saved". The medium has proven itself too effective across too many cultures to ever die out. Regardless of what happens to DC or Marvel, someone will always make comics. Maybe it won't always be something you can get rich off of, but it's always going to be a useful storytelling medium for people who want to use it. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76841#Comment_76841 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76841#Comment_76841 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:30:45 -0700 buzzorhowl
@Kosmopolit--I work in a sci-fi/fantasy bookstore, and we added graphic novels to our inventory about two years ago. It quickly became one of the highest-selling areas of our store. So yeah, people are definitely open to buying graphic novels, and what's more, we file our graphic novels by author and our customers prefer that. But it's not something that brings kids in--our graphic novel readers are adults. Then again, considering that a lot of them are not like me and were not comics fans as kids, maybe the rise of graphic novel collections is a new and somewhat unrecognized way to bring in new readers that are adults and have never tried comics before in their lives. So I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do think that the sales of single-issue floppies is hurt by their unavailability in traditional comic book markets like 7-11 or whatever. That said, there is one Borders in my town with a spinner rack, and what Jacen says about their comics section is totally true--it's a huge mess. Half of the comics on that spinner rack at any given time are so beaten up that there's no way I'd pay for them.

So yes--multiple problems, multiple potential solutions, and none of them is going to be a panacea. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76883#Comment_76883 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76883#Comment_76883 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:41:55 -0700 tedcroland I agree that shuffling names across companies won't help as much as maybe Kirkman would like to think, but it's because your typical comics fan doesn't read writers, he/she reads characters.

Actually, in my experience, people read do both. Most people that I know that read comics know what they want to read, and that usually involves both mainstream characters and particular writers and artists they like. There are definitely people that exist in the extremes, but even people that are new to comics and really only want Capes stuff, they tend to learn quickly who they want to be reading. They know they want Ellis' Astonishing, Brubaker's Cap, Bendis' Avengers. And when those writers leave, the sales tend to drop off for that same reason.

Casual readers are another story, because they tend to populate the extremes. Either they want Daniel Clowes, or they want the Goddamned Batman. But I think that, unlike most other mediums, it is more carried by the die hards than the casual readers at this point. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76920#Comment_76920 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=76920#Comment_76920 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:00:57 -0700 mlpeters "How do the graphic novel sections in the local bookshops compare with 10 years ago? "

There isn't a "local" bookshop. The nearest is... 20 miles, or so away, in Big Rapids (which is neither big, nor rapid). They usually have 3-5 tpbs, next to the humor section (which also includes comic strips). It's pretty bizarre seeing a Tpb of 100 Bullets shelved next to Dilbert.

That shop is pretty progressive, for the area -- they had Maus, an Eisner GN and McCloud's Understanding Comics 10 years ago, so things there aren't too different.

Of course, Big Rapids had an actual comics shop ten years ago, another bookstore and a drug store that carried a wide range of magazines and comics - -those stores are gone, now. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77075#Comment_77075 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77075#Comment_77075 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:04:55 -0700 ScottBieser
Meanwhile all the other superhero pamphlets sell in the 40,000 - 100,000 copies per issue range, mostly, and their collected trades sell about 2,500 -25,000 copies per year. "Indie" pamphlets, meanwhile sell from 500 to 25,000 copies, mostly, and both collected trades and original GNs sell from 500 to 15,000 copies per year. And for both indie and superhero pamphlets, the best-seller numbers have moved downwards pretty consistently since 1985.

For creators at the Big Two, moving to indie-published, creator-owned work would be a good move for some, perhaps not so good for others. It really depends on an individual's particular talents and perclivities.

And Warren has pointed out on several occasions that when he started doing WFH Spendex stories for Marvel again, it led readers to find his creator-owned works and boosted their sales. So while it is true that many current comics readers are more devoted to their favorite characters than their favorite creators, there are also many who will follow their favorite writers, at least. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77080#Comment_77080 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77080#Comment_77080 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:48:36 -0700 mlpeters Part of my point was that even in this rural area, ten or fifteen years ago, comics were fairly common. People who grow up in rural America aren't being exposed to comics at an early age, like they used to -- and even if they move to big cities, they are less likely to become comics readers because of the lack of exposure in their youth. I don't think dismissing a problem of access makes it go away. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77081#Comment_77081 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77081#Comment_77081 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:16:05 -0700 jbacardi Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77595#Comment_77595 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=77595#Comment_77595 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:38:43 -0700 Jamie Coville This whole shuffling of names between companies, really doesn't change much for me. And I'm not sure how that would result in "saving comics". The issue is still going to be the same.

I think the shifting of names can help out some. As the old saying goes, different strokes for different folks. The more diversity we have out there, the more casual people we can catch (or possibly keep if they are tiring of the big two). Even Superhero or Superhero-ish books like Invincible or Godland can be different enough (be it in art or in writing style) to appeal to readers not into the big two for whatever reason.

If the names are big enough they should get on the racks and potentially stay there ala Walking Dead, vs something that's by an unknown creator that's likely to be pre-order only. That would help come FBCD or if any movie traffic hits a comic shop.

Granted, it won't "save comics" but it's something the creators can do to help, both themselves and the industry. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78440#Comment_78440 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78440#Comment_78440 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:01:54 -0700 Walker James There are a lot of problems with getting comics racked at the traditional non-direct marketsWhich could potentially be fixed if we did it somewhat like Japan does. I've been thinking that for years! For those that don't know they make weekly/monthly magazine serials with many different creators/stories an issue that are collected separately in trades when appropriate. They could even print in greyscale and the trades could be color for even more incentive to buy both (and for lowering the price for the newstand magazine). YTF has this not happened yet? I can think of some reasons why it wont work (and be hard to coordinate) but a lot more reasons why it will.

And yes I know Heavy Metal is kind of like this but of course you would need broader(and better) content to make this thing work.

Also here is a great idea from the man whose e-penis we are all riding:

"Fuck superheroes, frankly. The notion that these things dominate an entire genre is absurd."

Sure Invincible and Black Summer are good examples that there can always be a great new superhero book but I'm tired of them (in comic form) and am much more likely to flip through a new book about anything else. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78473#Comment_78473 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78473#Comment_78473 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:59:01 -0700 warrenellis
I've been greatly amused by this thread. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78489#Comment_78489 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78489#Comment_78489 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:26:54 -0700 morganagrom
It's not like creators don't know about the Image option. It's out there, but perhaps many creators don't want to shoulder the financial risk and essentially be self-publishers.

So why not offer them a better deal? Maybe a page-rate/advance on royalties comprable to what they might expect on their DC/Marvel books? If Image feels it needs to attach the ancilliary rights, leave the creators with at least as much of the rights as they would have at DC or Dark Horse.

There - half the problem's solved.

The second half is a little tougher - Image, being a home for creator-owned properties, needs to launch a serious education campaign to sway people from buying as many Marvel & DC comics. Something like "creator-owned is better than company-owned" or encouraging people to buy their comics instead of "grandpa comics." Basically, Image needs to convince people that original ideas are more exciting and worthwhile than the latest non-event from DC/Marvel.

Convince the talent that an audience exists and cultivate an audience for the talent. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78522#Comment_78522 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78522#Comment_78522 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:07:11 -0700 Walker James So why not offer them a better deal? Maybe a page-rate/advance on royalties comprable to what they might expect on their DC/Marvel books? If Image feels it needs to attach the ancilliary rights, leave the creators with at least as much of the rights as they would have at DC or Dark Horse.This would go against most of the values that the company was founded upon. What if the Sex Pistols never disbanded and somewhere in the early 90's they went disco? It would be shameful to say the very least.

Besides, if money were such an incentive to fly solo then why aren't more top writers and artists already doing that at Avatar? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78540#Comment_78540 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78540#Comment_78540 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:22:33 -0700 morganagrom
Why would it be shameful for Image to keep doing what they've always done, but offer another option. Wouldn't more options be better than less? If a creator wants to take the traditional Image Central option, what's stopping them now, assuming Image wants to publish their book. A page-rate/advance option could simply be another way, for the creators who aren't willing or able to work for free hoping the sales and the back-end check will be high enough to justify turning down paying (work for hire) work.

As for working at Avatar, there may well be plenty of reasons not to go to Avatar. Would Avatar be able to offer page rates to the creators in question comparable to what they might get at Marvel/DC or even Dark Horse? Does Avatar have the capacity to expand its publishing schedule, and how diverse would the company want it's brand to become? Would many front-of-the-catalog creators want to become back-of-the-catalog creators? ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78586#Comment_78586 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78586#Comment_78586 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:00:52 -0700 Kosmopolit
There's no in-principle difference between selling a movie option for a sum of money and giving a publisher a part-interest in the movie rights for a set period in exchange for a page rate ansd a decent promotional budget. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78860#Comment_78860 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78860#Comment_78860 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:41:54 -0700 ANIMLBOOGY
Bendis really has cast aside a chance at using some of that notoriety to push more creative work. There's no denying that. Still, he seems acutely aware that his time at Marvel is limited, so he's jumping at the chance to basically be the architect of a fictional universe for awhile. Kirkman just wants him to jump ship before it sinks for him, as it has for so many creators in the past. He's completely right about that.

I know he wants the fan response to help trigger a massive change in opinion in the community as a whole. But this wasn't for us. He could have written some personal letters to every creator guilty of his charges and written an essay or two on the subject later. Instead, he's getting press for saying something in a long, taped rant that people like Brian K. Vaughan have been saying for a very long time, and saying it without the required eloquence to convince anybody of anything.

He has power at Image. He should groom the next writer/artist teams that can move singles and trades like The Walking Dead and Y: The Last Man do, and worry less about attracting dogmatic superhero freaks to books they'll never read anyway. Find a new audience. The old one is probably too broken to bother with. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78895#Comment_78895 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78895#Comment_78895 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:55:34 -0700 Brad McLoughlin Bendis really has cast aside a chance at using some of that notoriety to push more creative work

I'll second that, and it goes for a lot of creators, comics is one of the only mediums were work for hire is the top of the pile, while in everything else, it's the stepping stone to the kind of respect/notoriety that will allow you to do whatever the hell you want (which is great as long as you have the talent and skill to pull it off).

I still think one of the main problems with comics as an industry is that, because the medium has become such a niche (partially due to distribution, partly due to a corporate enforced reservation from doing anything interesting), the people who work in comics are people who pretty much just read (past tense) comics. It's too inbred an industry for its own good, and the cracks show a lot of the time, be it the limitations passed on from the creators' predecessors, or a nostalgic streak that just lends itself to repetition and, ultimately, stagnation/boredom.

Even the outsourced talent is still from the same stock (like the writers of Heroes are going to revolutionise comics!?). The "big names" moving to Image/other independent publishers? How is that going to make the slightest bit of difference when its still just the comic book community who know about these big names? Everyone's still going to be paddling in the same gene pool... ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78943#Comment_78943 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78943#Comment_78943 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:38:21 -0700 dudelebowski Bendis really has cast aside a chance at using some of that notoriety to push more creative work. There's no denying that. Still, he seems acutely aware that his time at Marvel is limited, so he's jumping at the chance to basically be the architect of a fictional universe for awhile. Kirkman just wants him to jump ship before it sinks for him, as it has for so many creators in the past. He's completely right about that.

What's the hurry for a guy like bendis to return to creator owned title? He is not seventy years old and with a terminal disease that I know of. What are two or five years of only-marvel work in the larger scope of an entire career? He has a name, and I believe he still has the talent, and it's not like marvel is corrupting his talent anyway. When he will be fed up with marvel he'll probably go back to creator owned. I don't see why he should do it now. Other authors do it, he doesn't, others never will, who are we, or Kirkman, to know what's best for his career.
BTW if kirkman titles didn't really suck maybe he wouldn't be here making such a speech.
Bendis has also done some good things at marvel, parts of his daredevil run come to mind, and at least his approach to the avengers and even to crossover events is unusual and sort of refreshing. I'm not at all in love with Secret Invasion, far from it actually, but for sure it's not just a blockbuster thing, there's a very peculiar tone and rhythm in the main miniseries. And he could not experiment with that kind of thing on a creator owned title. He will have a name to do some creative work in five years too. There's nothing wrong in trying to write good superheroes, ellis does it, vaughan does it, aaron does it, brubaker does it, gaiman does it occasionaly and azzarello too. Is the notoriety Brubaker got with Captain america selling more copies of Criminal, or the fact that Ellis did a very good thunderbolts run is selling more copies of doktor sleepless, possibly, but surely not nearly enough to change the market, any market and especially such a niche market as the US comics one. It was once upon a time a popular art, now the sales number are depressing. In Italy we have a monthly comics that sell 300.000 copies, way more than a crossover big event in a much larger country like the USA according to the Diamond direct market reports. I still don't fully understand how that happened, especially considering that comics characters are more popular than ever in movies and cartoon franchises. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78970#Comment_78970 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78970#Comment_78970 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:44:50 -0700 Kosmopolit
Given the sales on his Marvel Zombies books, I doubt Kirkman would have had any difficulty getting further work at the Big Two. ]]> Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78976#Comment_78976 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78976#Comment_78976 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:03:02 -0700 dudelebowski Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78991#Comment_78991 http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=3309&Focus=78991#Comment_78991 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:48:42 -0700 warrenellis