Not signed in (Sign In)

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

Bottom of Page

61 to 80 of 86

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorRantz
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2008
     (3309.61)
    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
  2.  (3309.62)
    @rantz:
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRantz
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2008
     (3309.63)
    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.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2008
     (3309.64)
    "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."

    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
    • CommentAuthormlpeters
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2008
     (3309.65)
    @Kosmopolit

    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."
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2008
     (3309.66)
    Comcis aren't dying, they're just changing and adapting.

    How do the graphic novel sections in the local bookshops compare with 10 years ago?
  7.  (3309.67)
    I read my first comic book in a Walden books in those litttle spinner racks they used to have. And I remember the way I followed comics for the longest time when I was a kid is I would save up my allowance and buy these packs of comics they sold at our local grocery store. Like you would buy this pack for like 5 dollars and it'd have like 3 or 4 comics of an arc from say spider-man or x-men.

    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.
    • CommentAuthorbuzzorhowl
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2008
     (3309.68)
    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. As a kid, I was really excited when I'd find a guy like Frank Miller writing Batman or Daredevil, because I could tell that what he was doing was a cut above the usual stories in those comics, but I'd just keep buying Batman the next month rather than looking for other stuff by Frank Miller. I got over that way of looking at comics, but a lot of people my age didn't, and now, they'll see that the really great issue of Astonishing X-Men they just read was written by Warren Ellis and they don't care. They don't buy another Warren Ellis comic book, they buy another X-Men comic book. So yeah, @mercurialblonde, I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do.

    @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.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2008 edited
     (3309.69)
    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.
    • CommentAuthormlpeters
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2008
     (3309.70)
    @kosmopolit
    "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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScottBieser
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2008 edited
     (3309.71)
    mlpeters' world isn't representative of typical comics fans, it should be pointed out. Most of us live in larger metropolitan areas. And Watchmen is not a typical comic book, it should be even more emphatically pointed out. It was a singular writer's work of genius which has now gotten Hollywood's Attention and therefore becoming a truly mass-culture item.

    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.
    • CommentAuthormlpeters
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2008
     (3309.72)
    @ScottBieser
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjbacardi
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2008 edited
     (3309.73)
    deleted
  14.  (3309.74)
    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.
  15.  (3309.75)
    There are a lot of problems with getting comics racked at the traditional non-direct markets
    Which 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.
  16.  (3309.76)
    Yes. RIDE MY E-PENIS MOAR

    I've been greatly amused by this thread.
  17.  (3309.77)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Kudos to Kirkman for bravely saying what people have been saying for years! How about putting the Image money where his mouth is.

    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.
  18.  (3309.78)
    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?
  19.  (3309.79)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    What values - moving away from work for hire and launching new ideas (and then hiring other people to help out on a work for hire basis)?

    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?
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeAug 26th 2008
     (3309.80)
    Walker James, if you accept that creators should control the rights to their works then that includes the abiliity to sell or lease some or all of those right, provided they're free to enter into such agrements voluntarily and on reasonably equal standing with the other party.

    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.

61 to 80 of 86

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