Not signed in (Sign In)

Printheads: [Closed] Robert Kirkman's Mission Statement: Creator-owned is the way to go

Bottom of Page

41 to 60 of 86

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. >
  1.  (3309.1)
    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. 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.
    • CommentAuthorbuzzorhowl
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.2)
    Haha I live in fear of the arse eels as well, so I understand where you're coming from on that. But there are points I want to make, so I will now reply to that post. But calmly and in the spirit of friendly debate, so don't worry about that.

    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.
    • CommentAuthorbuzzorhowl
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.3)
    OK, that was a response to your first post. This is a response to your second post.

    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.
  4.  (3309.4)
    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.
  5.  (3309.5)
    Wow, we're rolling off-topic here. My apologies to vrbtm for that. Yikes.
  6.  (3309.6)
    @justineger
    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.
    • CommentAuthorbuzzorhowl
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.7)
    @stevewallace Actually I think Neil Ofsteel made the best point about kids not reading comics--the places we all bought comics as kids don't sell comics anymore. Grocery stores, minimarts, mall bookstores, etc. If the comics companies want to sell to kids, they need to find a way to get themselves in front of kids. But I think they're happy not doing so, actually. They're fine with making what little money they make in the direct market and making the rest of their money from movie options.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJacen
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.8)
    slight thread tangent- There are a lot of problems with getting comics racked at the traditional non-direct markets (I used to manage the magazine section at the bookstore I worked at as a teen). You can't expect to fit the 60+ Marvel DC monthlies on spinner racks and they don't hold up on the newsstand next to magazines. They are floppy, thin spined, take up a ton of face space and they are a mess to keep organized. They get rifled through all day, leaving a bent up mess that no one wants to spend $3-4 on and most clerks at these stores have no clue how to organize them. And that doesn't begin to get in to the returnability issues. I applaud the places where you still can find monthlies but there is a reason digests and trades are the preferred retail formats.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhectorlima
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.9)
    it's the Emo cover of 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.
  10.  (3309.10)
    I don't like the direction Image is going. This is kind of a confirmation of my fears. That image is just going to turn into "we only publish writers from the big two who are already established". Kirkman is basically speaking to guys like Millar, Ellis(who has been doing creator owned since before Kirkman started making comics), Brubaker, and Bendis.

    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.11)
    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).
  12.  (3309.12)
    With Image switching to up-front payments rather than back-end, they'll need to build up some on-hand cash, and the best way to do that is to draw in big names with somewhat guaranteed sales. I seriously doubt Image will turn its back on little-known creators and comics - it's what their current foundation is built on.

    And why doesn't Matt Fraction have to give a fuck about Image now? Aren't they still the publishers of Casanova?
  13.  (3309.13)
    @Shawnclark
    ... 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.
    •  
      CommentAuthormadmatt213
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.14)
    @mercurialblonde
    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).
    •  
      CommentAuthormadmatt213
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008 edited
     (3309.15)
    @stevewallace
    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.
  16.  (3309.16)
    @Stevewallace:
    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.
  17.  (3309.17)
    I'd also throw this out there.
    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?
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.18)
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJacen
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2008
     (3309.19)
    @mercurialblonde: I really don't think you need to worry about Image's direction. Kirkman's role is probably to help bring bigger names into the fold but thats only one aspect of their game. Eric Stephenson, the publisher is, by all accounts, a great guy who is a big supporter of diversity in comics. Image Central is still going to be a place to find all kinds of stuff I'd think. They're in good hands, I think they are just trying to bring in a few ringers.

    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.
  20.  (3309.20)
    @Jacen: I hope you're right. But they obviously brought Kirkman in because they wanted to change something. And to have him giving dramatic pronouncements like this, you can understand why it might give someone pause.

41 to 60 of 86

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. >