I hear you, but probably best to not compare with the speculator 90s and the #1 issues of that time. That is a bit of an apples and oranges. As I am talking about (hopefully) titles where people are actually buying them to read them.
I would be curious how the current variety would compare to 10 years ago.
And the idea that a Hawkeye title not only exists, but actually cracks into the top 50.
And I would be curious how Hawkeye ranks on Comixology. Probably charts even higher.
The publishers play to the speculator market as much now as ever. I think the return of the polybags and 3d covers is proof of that. The numbers of books that issue 5 or lower is pretty consistent, as is the amount of #1's alone. There is variety out there, and people do buy good books, but over and over the market shows that for the most part we are only interested in Batman, Superman, Spider-man, Wolverine, The X-Men, The Avengers and the Justice League. And then, only the books that "count".
I disagree.
Polybags and a month of 3D covers are now the exception, often laughed at, not the rule.
The difference is that in the 90s the speculator market was served to the exclusion of everything else. I was there. At that time finding quality in the Big 2 was a needle in a haystack. Now, there is plenty that is great. Heck, even the Eisner voters end up giving awards to a book about Hawkeye. And, sure, a book that "counts" or has multiple covers is going to beat Hawkeye in the charts. I get your point that behavior will rule the top of the charts.
But who cares? This is not about the creatively best book having to sell the very best. My point is that we are in a market where the there is a market, even in corporate superhero books, for things like Hawkeye. That it exists at all puts now ahead of the 90s.
And, more importantly, we do have more diversity of product now. In the 90s many (most?) of the publishers outside the Big 2 were in the same race to the bottom. Now? Even skipping all the other publishers and focusing on Image alone we have more choices of genre, and more (and, personally, I would say better) voices at the table than back in the 90s.
And that is just talking print. Not getting into the world of webcomics or digital comics from publishers like Monkeybrain on offer.
I know this is an overly broad aside, but at the end of the day, as a comics reader in 2013 I'm pretty happy. I would imagine it would be different if I had a bigger stake- if I were a publisher, a retailer, a creator. i'm not. But as a reader I am spoiled for choice. I've got access to more that I want to read than I've got time for. And hell, looking at the top 21 from last month, I read a lot of those (to be fair, some borrowed) and most of them were pretty entertaining. That was not my experience with most of what I bought in 1993.
Amidst a lot of the naysaying and griping we can do around here, I think it is sometime worth taking a moment to remember the choices we have right now.
And I will loop it around to the earlier conversation- in 1993 I was buying a lot of these same characters, but buying less because the creative on those books was less enjoyable. 1993 was around the time I started dropping a lot of characters I had been reading most of my life. god knows I had the time, and even the money. Now? i wish I had time to read even more than I do. And mostly these characters are the same. It is the creators that are making the difference in my enthusiasm.
Speaking of which... will do one more and then it's off to read funnybooks instead of type about them.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
I was throwing that out as an example. And I always define "new readers" as readers who haven't read comics before. New readers (by this definition) probably don't know who Snyder/Capullo are.
M
Sure. But they can see a cool looking Capullo cover and give it a try. And if they go back for the next issue (or click for the next) thats not just Batman. That is Batman WITH Snyder and Capullo that makes that follow-on sale.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
I was throwing that out as an example. And I always define "new readers" as readers who haven't read comics before. New readers (by this definition) probably don't know who Snyder/Capullo are.
M
Sure. But they can see a cool looking Capullo cover and give it a try. And if they go back for the next issue (or click for the next) thats not just Batman. That is Batman WITH Snyder and Capullo that makes that follow-on sale.
That could be misleading though. Is the Capullo art apart of why the next issue was gotten or why it was gotten? When Humberto Ramos and Kelley Jones were working on Spider-man & Batman (respectfully), I found the art styles to be mindnumbingly poor. It drastically took me out of the stories.
The first time I read Ultimate Spider-man, it was when Moon Knight was introduced. The art was great, but I couldn't stand Bendis' dialogue. The art work was a bonus to reading this particular storyline with a character I wanted to read. I went back to get the Black Cat storyline. Again, liked the art, couldn't stand the dialogue. Despite the art, I didn't get any other issue of the series. I only cared to read about Moon Knight & Black Cat.
If Ramos did the art for Bendis' Moon Knight series, I'd still buy it because of the character.
When I stopped reading Batman, I thought the art was beautiful. It was the direction of the character that turned me away. Not even so much the writing style of Morrison, but the direction; Morrison's JLA Batman was a great read.
I was never really a regular (re: single issue subscriber) reader of Batman because I knew he'd always be around. He was the epitome of "Wait For The Trade" for me. It didn't matter how crappy the Bat-tale was - they'd eventually collect it for me to buy if I so choose.
The Snyder-Capullo N52 Batman is the first time I've ever not only picked up the book on a monthly basis, but have been subscribing to it for the past year and a half. And it isn't because I was a huge Snyder/Capullo fanboy...I didn't know who the former was and all I knew from Capullo was he was Todd McFarlane v 2.0 back in the day. Still...word of mouth...on here and elsewhere, was that of all the N52 Batbooks - Batman was the good one. So I gave it a day in court...and yes, was suitably blown away by it.
Batman sells Batman, I agree. But Batman will always sell Batman. It's when you get down to the nitty gritty of it and try to determine what of Batman that brand alone will sell, that you have to consider creative teams.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
I was throwing that out as an example. And I always define "new readers" as readers who haven't read comics before. New readers (by this definition) probably don't know who Snyder/Capullo are.
M
Sure. But they can see a cool looking Capullo cover and give it a try. And if they go back for the next issue (or click for the next) thats not just Batman. That is Batman WITH Snyder and Capullo that makes that follow-on sale.
That could be misleading though. Is the Capullo art apart of why the next issue was gotten or why it was gotten? When Humberto Ramos and Kelley Jones were working on Spider-man & Batman (respectfully), I found the art styles to be mindnumbingly poor. It drastically took me out of the stories.
The first time I read Ultimate Spider-man, it was when Moon Knight was introduced. The art was great, but I couldn't stand Bendis' dialogue. The art work was a bonus to reading this particular storyline with a character I wanted to read. I went back to get the Black Cat storyline. Again, liked the art, couldn't stand the dialogue. Despite the art, I didn't get any other issue of the series. I only cared to read about Moon Knight & Black Cat.
If Ramos did the art for Bendis' Moon Knight series, I'd still buy it because of the character.
When I stopped reading Batman, I thought the art was beautiful. It was the direction of the character that turned me away. Not even so much the writing style of Morrison, but the direction; Morrison's JLA Batman was a great read.
M
It is always hard to parse which creator on a collaborative book gets the most credit or blame for keeping you buying or pushing you away. I think that is subjective to every reader. Some of us are more in tune with the writing, some more with the art, some an even balance. It varies.
But I think even stories of when you stopped reading a book because a creator drove you out is just another version of what I am talking about. Ultimate Spider-Man was still Spider-Man, but the dialogue drove you away. Just as with examples of it being the character WITH the creators that sell and continue to sell the books, it can be the character WITH creators you don't like that get you stop buying.
So to circle back to that Liefeld quote, (and mix it with the old breakup line), in that case, "It wasn't Batman, it was YOU".
Batman does sell Batman. The fact that Tanga.com has sold me a years subscription 2 years in a row for about 13 bucks each has not hurt Batman's salesmanship though.
My favorite character has been The Thing but until recently I was never a fan of the Fantastic 4. It was always when he was in a team-up or when he occasionally has his own series (Dan Slott's a few years ago is one of my favorites) Recently though I've been borrowing the new series and even got #8 myself.
So the creator is helping me follow the character.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
I was throwing that out as an example. And I always define "new readers" as readers who haven't read comics before. New readers (by this definition) probably don't know who Snyder/Capullo are.
M
Sure. But they can see a cool looking Capullo cover and give it a try. And if they go back for the next issue (or click for the next) thats not just Batman. That is Batman WITH Snyder and Capullo that makes that follow-on sale.
That could be misleading though. Is the Capullo art apart of why the next issue was gotten or why it was gotten? When Humberto Ramos and Kelley Jones were working on Spider-man & Batman (respectfully), I found the art styles to be mindnumbingly poor. It drastically took me out of the stories.
The first time I read Ultimate Spider-man, it was when Moon Knight was introduced. The art was great, but I couldn't stand Bendis' dialogue. The art work was a bonus to reading this particular storyline with a character I wanted to read. I went back to get the Black Cat storyline. Again, liked the art, couldn't stand the dialogue. Despite the art, I didn't get any other issue of the series. I only cared to read about Moon Knight & Black Cat.
If Ramos did the art for Bendis' Moon Knight series, I'd still buy it because of the character.
When I stopped reading Batman, I thought the art was beautiful. It was the direction of the character that turned me away. Not even so much the writing style of Morrison, but the direction; Morrison's JLA Batman was a great read.
M
It is always hard to parse which creator on a collaborative book gets the most credit or blame for keeping you buying or pushing you away. I think that is subjective to every reader. Some of us are more in tune with the writing, some more with the art, some an even balance. It varies.
But I think even stories of when you stopped reading a book because a creator drove you out is just another version of what I am talking about. Ultimate Spider-Man was still Spider-Man, but the dialogue drove you away. Just as with examples of it being the character WITH the creators that sell and continue to sell the books, it can be the character WITH creators you don't like that get you stop buying.
So to circle back to that Liefeld quote, (and mix it with the old breakup line), in that case, "It wasn't Batman, it was YOU".
Truth be told, it was the concept of Ultimate Spider-man and the dialogue that kept me away. It might share the same name, but well before Miles was under the mask, Ultimate Spider-man was never Spider-man for me. I didn't need a reinvented wheel.
Truth be told, it was the concept of Ultimate Spider-man and the dialogue that kept me away. It might share the same name, but well before Miles was under the mask, Ultimate Spider-man was never Spider-man for me. I didn't need a reinvented wheel.
M
Whaddaya know? Something I can agree wholeheartedly with Matt about.
Truth be told, it was the concept of Ultimate Spider-man and the dialogue that kept me away. It might share the same name, but well before Miles was under the mask, Ultimate Spider-man was never Spider-man for me. I didn't need a reinvented wheel.
M
Whaddaya know? Something I can agree wholeheartedly with Matt about.
I could kind of sort of understand the Batman argument, but then you factor in the fact that Superman Unchained is the best seller as well, then many of these arguments seem to just wash away for me. That is TWO books on the bestseller by one writer there is no coincidence here.
I could kind of sort of understand the Batman argument, but then you factor in the fact that Superman Unchained is the best seller as well, then many of these arguments seem to just wash away for me. That is TWO books on the bestseller by one writer there is no coincidence here.
Its not coincidence, but its the fact that he's writing Superman, with Jim Lee on pencils, that is selling the book. Wake is selling amazing for a Vertigo title, at almost 20 times less than what Unchained is selling. People want to read Snyder, but they really want to read Snyder on classic characters. Its the potential to read a good Superman story that has driven the numbers. Creative teams have impact, but its still the character that is selling the book in the end.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
It’s interesting to me that you’re calling creators who say you should follow creators selfish, and that by doing so it puts the importance on the creators over the characters, and I’m surprised no one has touched on this aspect of your comment. It’s no more selfish than DC telling Siegel and Shuster (in essence), “We own Superman, not you. Here’s a million bucks. Now shut up and go away.” All while making hundreds of millions of dollars off the character. (Please, this analogy is in no way intended to turn this thread into a work-for-hire debate.) DC (and Marvel, and IDW, and so on) wants to make money. So do the creators. Why shouldn’t creators be allowed to look out for themselves? No one else is going to look out for them.
I agree that for most comic book readers, and for consumers of most pop entertainment in general, yes, the characters come first. That’s been proven over and over. But it’s not a one or the other proposition. Great characters need great creators, and great creators need great characters. If Scott Lobdell and Rob Liefeld were the best the industry had to offer, I can safely say that I would not be reading comics. Likewise, if Leapfrog (sorry all you Leapfrog fans) was the best character the industry had to offer, I’m not sure even Alan Moore could keep me interested (though I’d like to see him try) for more than a mini-series or two.
To say one is more important than the other is ridiculous in my mind. @Matt, I don’t know if you enjoyed or even have read Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman stories, but if they had not come along and darkened up the Dark Knight, and the character had stayed the same as he had been through the ’50s and ’60s, I think it’s safe to say you would not be a Batman fan. Likewise, you said you don’t like Green Arrow, so you probably wouldn’t like Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’ run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, even though they were taking a similar approach of making street-level stories. So, obviously it wasn’t those creators and their approach alone that did the trick. It was the juxtaposition of those two creators and that particular character that resulted in a character you have become attached to.
And, yes, I agree that Batman sells Batman to a large degree. But let’s not forget that Batman was on the verge of cancellation in the ’60s before Carmine Infantino was brought in to save the title. It was the change of direction in the writing and the art brought on by Julius Schwartz and Carmine (and shortly thereafter a brief but significant bump by the TV show that Matt hates so much) that kept the character going, so that it could then be changed again by O’Neil and Adams into the character that Matt enjoys, and which has so greatly informed the version of the character that thrives today.
I could kind of sort of understand the Batman argument, but then you factor in the fact that Superman Unchained is the best seller as well, then many of these arguments seem to just wash away for me. That is TWO books on the bestseller by one writer there is no coincidence here.
Its not coincidence, but its the fact that he's writing Superman, with Jim Lee on pencils, that is selling the book. Wake is selling amazing for a Vertigo title, at almost 20 times less than what Unchained is selling. People want to read Snyder, but they really want to read Snyder on classic characters. Its the potential to read a good Superman story that has driven the numbers. Creative teams have impact, but its still the character that is selling the book in the end.
Sure, I think everyone will agree that when it comes to these kinds of comics that the character is bigger than the creative team. No one is arguing that is not true.
But there are some who are arguing the Liefeld point of 'It's not you. It's Batman.' And I just don't think it is that simple. There is lots of Batman on offer. But some Batman sells more than other Batman. Just like some Superman sells more than other Superman. Superman Unchained is by no means the historical high seller or "main" book. The actual title of it is not simply Superman, in fact, it is sort of a wonky name for a book, if you ask me. But it still sold far and above the other Superman books, and even many of the Bat books. Because it is Superman, yes, but also because it is Superman with Jim Lee and Scott Snyder. Talent who bring their own crowd.
I think where some people are going wrong, in my opinion, is seeing the '(Creator) doesn't sell Batman, Batman sells Batman' as an either/or. But that is a false binary. It is packaging. Package Snyder and Capullo with Batman; or Snyder and Lee with Superman, and you will sell a LOT of Batman and Superman Unchained. And that is not the creator being selfish or putting themselves over the characters. What they are doing is additive. A collaboration. That is these creators adding their smaller brand to the larger brand of Batman or Superman. They are not in competition. They are working WITH these mega brands.
It is like the packaging that goes on with name actors and tentpole movies, especially the ones that are built on existing or proven content. You could try to parse out what sold Iron Man. Was it Iron Man? Or was it Robert Downey Jr.? Was it even Marvel as a brand? But, you know what, the people who made it knew they paid for and had all of that: they were adding the Robert Downey Jr. brand to their Iron Man brand, under their Marvel brand umbrella. And off they went. RDJ didn't have to compete with Iron Man, or worry about whether or not he was putting himself before the character. They collaborated. Aaaaaand it worked out. You know what I mean?
I could kind of sort of understand the Batman argument, but then you factor in the fact that Superman Unchained is the best seller as well, then many of these arguments seem to just wash away for me. That is TWO books on the bestseller by one writer there is no coincidence here.
Its not coincidence, but its the fact that he's writing Superman, with Jim Lee on pencils, that is selling the book. Wake is selling amazing for a Vertigo title, at almost 20 times less than what Unchained is selling. People want to read Snyder, but they really want to read Snyder on classic characters. Its the potential to read a good Superman story that has driven the numbers. Creative teams have impact, but its still the character that is selling the book in the end.
Sure, I think everyone will agree that when it comes to these kinds of comics that the character is bigger than the creative team. No one is arguing that is not true.
But there are some who are arguing the Liefeld point of 'It's not you. It's Batman.' And I just don't think it is that simple. There is lots of Batman. Some Batman sells more than other Batman. Just like some Superman sells more than other Superman. Superman Unchained is by no means the historical high seller or "main" book. The actual title of it is not simply Superman, in fact, it is sort of a wonky name for a book, if you ask me. But it still sold far and above the other Superman books, and even many of the Bat books. Because it is Superman, yes, but also because it is Superman with Jim Lee and Scott Snyder. Talent who bring their own crowd.
I think where some people are going wrong, in my opinion, is seeing the '(Creator) doesn't sell Batman, Batman sells Batman' as an either/or. But that is a false binary. It is packaging. Package Snyder and Capullo with Batman; or Snyder and Lee with Superman, and you will sell a LOT of Batman and Superman Unchained. And that is not the creator being selfish or putting themselves over the characters. That is additive.
This is something I can get behind. Everything working together, Batman sells Batman but how far does something sell based on Batman alone. I think when you start to factor in stuff like marketing and word of mouth, things start changing. I think that means everyone on the forum is right? Marketing must also have something to do with sales as well?
I could kind of sort of understand the Batman argument, but then you factor in the fact that Superman Unchained is the best seller as well, then many of these arguments seem to just wash away for me. That is TWO books on the bestseller by one writer there is no coincidence here.
Its not coincidence, but its the fact that he's writing Superman, with Jim Lee on pencils, that is selling the book. Wake is selling amazing for a Vertigo title, at almost 20 times less than what Unchained is selling. People want to read Snyder, but they really want to read Snyder on classic characters. Its the potential to read a good Superman story that has driven the numbers. Creative teams have impact, but its still the character that is selling the book in the end.
Sure, I think everyone will agree that when it comes to these kinds of comics that the character is bigger than the creative team. No one is arguing that is not true.
But there are some who are arguing the Liefeld point of 'It's not you. It's Batman.' And I just don't think it is that simple. There is lots of Batman. Some Batman sells more than other Batman. Just like some Superman sells more than other Superman. Superman Unchained is by no means the historical high seller or "main" book. The actual title of it is not simply Superman, in fact, it is sort of a wonky name for a book, if you ask me. But it still sold far and above the other Superman books, and even many of the Bat books. Because it is Superman, yes, but also because it is Superman with Jim Lee and Scott Snyder. Talent who bring their own crowd.
I think where some people are going wrong, in my opinion, is seeing the '(Creator) doesn't sell Batman, Batman sells Batman' as an either/or. But that is a false binary. It is packaging. Package Snyder and Capullo with Batman; or Snyder and Lee with Superman, and you will sell a LOT of Batman and Superman Unchained. And that is not the creator being selfish or putting themselves over the characters. That is additive.
This is something I can get behind. Everything working together, Batman sells Batman but how far does something sell based on Batman alone. I think when you start to factor in stuff like marketing and word of mouth, things start changing. I think that means everyone on the forum is right? Marketing must also have something to do with sales as well?
Yes. Marketing is a part of it as well. But I think much (most) of the marketing is actually telling us who is on the book. And presenting a striking image, made by someone working on the book. The marketing of Batman or Superman Unchained is not messaging what a Batman or a Superman is. The marketing is not just there to say, "Look! It's Batman. And Batman is here to sell you a book". Rather, they are telling us WHO is doing a book with one of these characters. They are showing us what the art (at least the cover, usually) will look like. The way that most of the marketing for these characters goes is a reminder of how important the talent brands have become in the comics business.
creators, marketing, character, and maybe word of mouth? podcasts? Comixology revealed Hawkeye is one of their bestsellers. These all go together?
There are also a few people here talking about being endlessly loyal to the creator and buying everything they have ever done. I don't think people should do that, it's always good to judge by gut impulse on whether or not you will enjoy something. Do you like the subject matter to begin with?
There is a healthy medium between all of these things.
There are also a few people here talking about being endlessly loyal to the creator and buying everything they have ever done. I don't think people should do that, it's always good to judge by gut impulse on whether or not you will enjoy something. Do you like the subject matter to begin with?
There is a healthy medium between all of these things.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Of course, as with all things, if you keep getting disappointed by a particular creative person (especially in a serialized medium like comics where you have reason to expect the NEXT issue of a given thing is likely to be like the current issue you did not enjoy) then of course there is not much sense in continuing. Buying ONLY out of loyalty or history, whether it is to a given creative person or to a given publication, doesn't make much sense.
But I actually think being loyal to a creative individual makes MORE sense than being loyal to a particular corporate character that has been and will continue to be worked on by a series of people. If you love the work of a given creative person, let's say you love their voice, what they do, their point of view, there is probably more chance, and more rewards, to be had in tracking the rest of their creative career than would come from deciding, 'I like this concept for a character, and will follow THAT no matter what'. You know what I mean? Even when that creative person might diversify, branch out, or do something very different than what they have done before.
By contrast, committing to a character, or even limiting yourself to certain subject matter. Well, if that concept is owned by a corporation and overseen by a series of stewards, then what are the odds that a lifetime of that work will be what you want?
I am not explaining it very well, but let me put it this way-- if I love, say, Darwyn Cooke, Mike Mignola, Brian K. Vaughan, or Garth Ennis. And I decide, therefore, that I will read, or at least try, anything they produce. Then I would guess my rate of return on that investment. The amount that I am likely to ENJOY, is probably going to be higher than, say, if I decide that, because I have enjoyed a lot of Batman or Punisher in the past that I am going to read, or at least try, ANYTHING those characters appear in. You know what I mean?
Both of those kinds of loyalty will lead to peaks and valleys. But I actually think being loyal to a creative person's output and following their career from thing to thing is likely a better bet than tracking the publication history of a given property.
At least, I feel that plan has worked out better for how I've spent my money.
And, whether it is comics or other mediums, I like getting the sense of a creative person's whole career. For example, John Updike is my favorite novelist. And there was a point where I decided I would read his complete works (well, okay, all his novels and his poetry. I gave myself an out on his books of essays and that &$(&ing book about golfing. Even I have limits!) And within that body of work there were things I enjoyed more than others. But I also appreciate what came of getting a complete picture of his body of work.
But I actually think being loyal to a creative individual makes MORE sense than being loyal to a particular corporate character that has been and will continue to be worked on by a series of people. If you love the work of a given creative person, let's say you love their voice, what they do, their point of view, there is probably more chance, and more rewards, to be had in tracking the rest of their creative career than would come from deciding, 'I like this concept for a character, and will follow THAT no matter what'. You know what I mean? Even when that creative person might diversify, branch out, or do something very different than what they have done before.
Totally agree. I said the same thing, albeit in a much less explanatory fashion, earlier in the thread.
And, whether it is comics or other mediums, I like getting the sense of a creative person's whole career. For example, John Updike is my favorite novelist. And there was a point where I decided I would read his complete works (well, okay, all his novels and his poetry. I gave myself an out on his books of essays and that &$(&ing book about golfing. Even I have limits!) And within that body of work there were things I enjoyed more than others. But I also appreciate what came of getting a complete picture of his body of work.
I did the same thing with Kurt Vonnegut as a freshman in college. I read all his books in chronological order by publishing date over the course of that year, so I could get a better sense of how he grew and changed as a writer over the course of time. In a lot of ways, I got as much out of that aspect of reading his books as I did the actual stories.
Ok, so we've determined that character brands sell books, great creative teams sell books, and the combination of great teams and popular brands sell the most amount of books. Some people like to follow characters, some like to follow creators. And if you're habits lead you to books you enjoy it doesn't really matter. There is no right or wrong.
But if you aren't satisfied? Try something different. I try to find books that about things I like to read about. I follow a few creators to a project, but if the story doesn't work for me I don't hold it against them. I just move on. I ask for suggestions when I'm not reading anything new. And sometimes, I just pick something because I like the cover. That's why I read Y: The Last Man.
I feel like reading comics (or any kind of reading/watching/listening) should be about the joy discovery. Sometimes its about discovering what happens next with your favorite character. Sometimes its about the exploration of themes, or the solving of a mystery, or the beauty of the art. And when that joy is gone its time to stop and try something new. It doesn't always work out, but when it does its spectacular.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
It’s interesting to me that you’re calling creators who say you should follow creators selfish, and that by doing so it puts the importance on the creators over the characters, and I’m surprised no one has touched on this aspect of your comment. It’s no more selfish than DC telling Siegel and Shuster (in essence), “We own Superman, not you. Here’s a million bucks. Now shut up and go away.” All while making hundreds of millions of dollars off the character. (Please, this analogy is in no way intended to turn this thread into a work-for-hire debate.) DC (and Marvel, and IDW, and so on) wants to make money. So do the creators. Why shouldn’t creators be allowed to look out for themselves? No one else is going to look out for them.
I agree that for most comic book readers, and for consumers of most pop entertainment in general, yes, the characters come first. That’s been proven over and over. But it’s not a one or the other proposition. Great characters need great creators, and great creators need great characters. If Scott Lobdell and Rob Liefeld were the best the industry had to offer, I can safely say that I would not be reading comics. Likewise, if Leapfrog (sorry all you Leapfrog fans) was the best character the industry had to offer, I’m not sure even Alan Moore could keep me interested (though I’d like to see him try) for more than a mini-series or two.
To say one is more important than the other is ridiculous in my mind. @Matt, I don’t know if you enjoyed or even have read Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman stories, but if they had not come along and darkened up the Dark Knight, and the character had stayed the same as he had been through the ’50s and ’60s, I think it’s safe to say you would not be a Batman fan. Likewise, you said you don’t like Green Arrow, so you probably wouldn’t like Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’ run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, even though they were taking a similar approach of making street-level stories. So, obviously it wasn’t those creators and their approach alone that did the trick. It was the juxtaposition of those two creators and that particular character that resulted in a character you have become attached to.
And, yes, I agree that Batman sells Batman to a large degree. But let’s not forget that Batman was on the verge of cancellation in the ’60s before Carmine Infantino was brought in to save the title. It was the change of direction in the writing and the art brought on by Julius Schwartz and Carmine (and shortly thereafter a brief but significant bump by the TV show that Matt hates so much) that kept the character going, so that it could then be changed again by O’Neil and Adams into the character that Matt enjoys, and which has so greatly informed the version of the character that thrives today.
Wouldn't that be like an athlete stating "you should follow me and not the team"? Wes Welker is my favorite football player. I hope he does well with the Broncos, but truth be told, I want the Patriots to do better any way they can over Denver. If that means Welker's 2013/2014 season sucks, then so be it. There are some teams that the big draw to the arena is the star athlete of the team. When I go to see my favorite teams, I want to see my favorite player, BUT I want to see the whole team more.
I am not sure if your Siegel and Shuster is a good example. Didn't they give up some rights to the character once they created him for DC? I sold something on eBay for a nice chunk of change. I can't go back and tell the buyer I want more because I saw someone else on eBay sold the same item for even more. At some point the deal made is the deal made. Do I think Siegel and Shuster got screwed out of what they could stand to get? Sure, but the market for the character or medium could've bottomed out in the 70s then Superman is worth a lot less. In turn, I don't think a company can overpay for a character, then if comeback and ask for money back if the character grossly undersold for the company.
I think if Bob Kane knew that The Dark Knight and Nolan's trilogy would gross well over a $1 billion, he'd have made an even bigger deal with the character initially. I think Kane was well paid, BUT I know he could've made a lot more. To some extent, a creator knows the he/she does on a character will net the company more than the creator. Saying I should follow Joe Shmoe with all of his projects, even if he works on a character I cannot stand, JUST because he is working on it, seems too self-promoting (how's that instead of selfish) for me. It's like we're to start a Shmoe cult and only buy him.
Much like with comics, I don't follow actors, directors, writers, etc on every show or movie they do. I love Anne Hathaway, but I'm not seeing Les Mis. I enjoyed James Cameron's earlier movies, but I'm not wasting my time with Avatar (partly because it started this 3D fad I can't stand.)
Also, having the collector mentality, I want to know I have a full run of Batman that goes back hundreds of issues instead of scattered issues because of a specific creator working on it. It feels more complete that a sample. Plus, if storylines reference a prior creator's storyline, I'd have the material to reread it.
@Matt I am always wary to engage a sports metaphor as I tend to not know what the hell I'm talking about, but I think there is a difference between creators and athletes that might invalidate the analogy- a player can only play for one team at a time. And fans often pick one team to root for in a sport. Which makes it zero sum.
Whereas I can choose to follow a creator and a character at the same time. I can read Hickman's Avengers books and buy his Image books at the same time. He is not asking me to leave one to follow the other.
@Matt I am always wary to engage a sports metaphor as I tend to not know what the hell I'm talking about, but I think there is a difference between creators and athletes that might invalidate the analogy- a player can only play for one team at a time. And fans often pick one team to root for in a sport. Which makes it zero sum.
Whereas I can choose to follow a creator and a character at the same time. I can read Hickman's Avengers books and buy his Image books at the same time. He is not asking me to leave one to follow the other.
Not completely. I look at the fanbase as almost the exact same (especially since I follow 1 character as I do 1 team.)
Each sport is like a different company Each team is like a different title Each player is like a creator Each season is like a new storyline
There are trades done pre-season, post-season, & during the season. Players who are free agents can choose what team (of those offering a spot) to play for. Mostly by money, but sometimes about greater chance for a championship or even teammates.
In NFL, players can get cut at anytime. Once cut, they can go elsewhere.
I could do a whole podcast ep showing how both fan bases do the same type of things, but here I will only mention I know a bunch of people who follow players instead of teams. They have a ton of former team stuff.
I'm with Matt. I've been a Saints fan from 1978 to the present day but when they sold out in 2009 and went mainstream the book just hasn't been the same. :)
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
It’s interesting to me that you’re calling creators who say you should follow creators selfish, and that by doing so it puts the importance on the creators over the characters, and I’m surprised no one has touched on this aspect of your comment. It’s no more selfish than DC telling Siegel and Shuster (in essence), “We own Superman, not you. Here’s a million bucks. Now shut up and go away.” All while making hundreds of millions of dollars off the character. (Please, this analogy is in no way intended to turn this thread into a work-for-hire debate.) DC (and Marvel, and IDW, and so on) wants to make money. So do the creators. Why shouldn’t creators be allowed to look out for themselves? No one else is going to look out for them.
I agree that for most comic book readers, and for consumers of most pop entertainment in general, yes, the characters come first. That’s been proven over and over. But it’s not a one or the other proposition. Great characters need great creators, and great creators need great characters. If Scott Lobdell and Rob Liefeld were the best the industry had to offer, I can safely say that I would not be reading comics. Likewise, if Leapfrog (sorry all you Leapfrog fans) was the best character the industry had to offer, I’m not sure even Alan Moore could keep me interested (though I’d like to see him try) for more than a mini-series or two.
To say one is more important than the other is ridiculous in my mind. @Matt, I don’t know if you enjoyed or even have read Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman stories, but if they had not come along and darkened up the Dark Knight, and the character had stayed the same as he had been through the ’50s and ’60s, I think it’s safe to say you would not be a Batman fan. Likewise, you said you don’t like Green Arrow, so you probably wouldn’t like Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’ run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, even though they were taking a similar approach of making street-level stories. So, obviously it wasn’t those creators and their approach alone that did the trick. It was the juxtaposition of those two creators and that particular character that resulted in a character you have become attached to.
And, yes, I agree that Batman sells Batman to a large degree. But let’s not forget that Batman was on the verge of cancellation in the ’60s before Carmine Infantino was brought in to save the title. It was the change of direction in the writing and the art brought on by Julius Schwartz and Carmine (and shortly thereafter a brief but significant bump by the TV show that Matt hates so much) that kept the character going, so that it could then be changed again by O’Neil and Adams into the character that Matt enjoys, and which has so greatly informed the version of the character that thrives today.
Wouldn't that be like an athlete stating "you should follow me and not the team"? Wes Welker is my favorite football player. I hope he does well with the Broncos, but truth be told, I want the Patriots to do better any way they can over Denver. If that means Welker's 2013/2014 season sucks, then so be it. There are some teams that the big draw to the arena is the star athlete of the team. When I go to see my favorite teams, I want to see my favorite player, BUT I want to see the whole team more.
I am not sure if your Siegel and Shuster is a good example. Didn't they give up some rights to the character once they created him for DC? I sold something on eBay for a nice chunk of change. I can't go back and tell the buyer I want more because I saw someone else on eBay sold the same item for even more. At some point the deal made is the deal made. Do I think Siegel and Shuster got screwed out of what they could stand to get? Sure, but the market for the character or medium could've bottomed out in the 70s then Superman is worth a lot less. In turn, I don't think a company can overpay for a character, then if comeback and ask for money back if the character grossly undersold for the company.
I think if Bob Kane knew that The Dark Knight and Nolan's trilogy would gross well over a $1 billion, he'd have made an even bigger deal with the character initially. I think Kane was well paid, BUT I know he could've made a lot more. To some extent, a creator knows the he/she does on a character will net the company more than the creator. Saying I should follow Joe Shmoe with all of his projects, even if he works on a character I cannot stand, JUST because he is working on it, seems too self-promoting (how's that instead of selfish) for me. It's like we're to start a Shmoe cult and only buy him.
Much like with comics, I don't follow actors, directors, writers, etc on every show or movie they do. I love Anne Hathaway, but I'm not seeing Les Mis. I enjoyed James Cameron's earlier movies, but I'm not wasting my time with Avatar (partly because it started this 3D fad I can't stand.)
Also, having the collector mentality, I want to know I have a full run of Batman that goes back hundreds of issues instead of scattered issues because of a specific creator working on it. It feels more complete that a sample. Plus, if storylines reference a prior creator's storyline, I'd have the material to reread it.
M.
Using your sports analogy, it would be more like Welker saying, “Follow this team”—meaning he and his teammates—“not the logo on our helmets.” It would be like, say, if his team were having a bad year because ownership made some bad decisions on how the team was put together, Welker saying that you should still root for the team, instead of staying at home on Sunday, because the team that’s on the field is giving it everything they have for the fans.
A creator saying, “Follow creators,” isn’t saying, “Follow me.” They’re saying, “Follow us.” For all the egos in the industry—as you will find in any industry—for the most part comic book creators are very supportive of one another.
I said I didn’t want to get into a work-for-hire debate, so let me use another analogy. Is DC being selfish when the editors make a writer rework his scripts to the point where the writer feels he has to quit, a là George Pérez among several others? That’s not only placing the editorial direction over the creative vision of the writer—serving what they see as the needs of the character above the creativity of the creator—but hamstringing a writer’s ability to do his job to the best of his ability.
You can say, “Well, it’s the company’s characters. They have the right to do whatever they want.” But why can’t the creators say, “We can do better stories when we’re allowed to do what we want. Follow us over to these other books, and we’ll show you what we mean”?
If you’ve read all of my posts on this thread, you’ll know I’m not advocating that you only follow creators, or that you should always buy everything your favorite creator does. And the thing is, I don’t know any creators who advocate that either (though I’m sure they appreciate those that do). I’m sure there are some out there, but if so they are few and far between. But I do take exception to the idea that a creator trying to promote his own work is being any more selfish than anyone else in any business who is trying to get consumers to buy their product.
Using your sports analogy, it would be more like Welker saying, “Follow this team”—meaning he and his teammates—“not the logo on our helmets.” It would be like, say, if his team were having a bad year because ownership made some bad decisions on how the team was put together, Welker saying that you should still root for the team, instead of staying at home on Sunday, because the team that’s on the field is giving it everything they have for the fans.
A creator saying, “Follow creators,” isn’t saying, “Follow me.” They’re saying, “Follow us.” For all the egos in the industry—as you will find in any industry—for the most part comic book creators are very supportive of one another.
I said I didn’t want to get into a work-for-hire debate, so let me use another analogy. Is DC being selfish when the editors make a writer rework his scripts to the point where the writer feels he has to quit, a là George Pérez among several others? That’s not only placing the editorial direction over the creative vision of the writer—serving what they see as the needs of the character above the creativity of the creator—but hamstringing a writer’s ability to do his job to the best of his ability.
You can say, “Well, it’s the company’s characters. They have the right to do whatever they want.” But why can’t the creators say, “We can do better stories when we’re allowed to do what we want. Follow us over to these other books, and we’ll show you what we mean”?
If you’ve read all of my posts on this thread, you’ll know I’m not advocating that you only follow creators, or that you should always buy everything your favorite creator does. And the thing is, I don’t know any creators who advocate that either (though I’m sure they appreciate those that do). I’m sure there are some out there, but if so they are few and far between. But I do take exception to the idea that a creator trying to promote his own work is being any more selfish than anyone else in any business who is trying to get consumers to buy their product.
This is feeling like a multi-layer discussion. I think there's a difference between Alex Ross saying "keep an eye out for Chris Robeson's work. His Shadow stuff is amazing, but he's a great reader on his independent work" vs "DC under pays & under appreciates my talents. You should be buying my work from Dynamite because they appreciate & showcase my work."
Also, as a writer/artist, isn't it presumed they'll be some level of censorship on your work on another company's property? As a preview to something I have coming up; when NOW comics started their Green Hornet series, Ron Fortier had a female Kato. Green Hornet, Inc had the company change it back to the Bruce Lee Kato a few issues later.
It seems like certain writers (such as Morrison) does have the ability to do what they want with a character, but to some extent any time you're paid for work you're going to be given parameters. To work where I do, there are certain parameters I must adhere to. I have to check in with my supervisor daily, something I greatly despise. There are cases I'd like to work 1 way, but its not how the company does things. I understand its part of working for the company.
Throwing in another sports example, the Boston Bruins play two-way players (players who play defense AND offense.) The players who thrive on the team adapts to playing both. Some players who've been traded or not resigned only focus on 1 way of playing.
Using your sports analogy, it would be more like Welker saying, “Follow this team”—meaning he and his teammates—“not the logo on our helmets.” It would be like, say, if his team were having a bad year because ownership made some bad decisions on how the team was put together, Welker saying that you should still root for the team, instead of staying at home on Sunday, because the team that’s on the field is giving it everything they have for the fans.
A creator saying, “Follow creators,” isn’t saying, “Follow me.” They’re saying, “Follow us.” For all the egos in the industry—as you will find in any industry—for the most part comic book creators are very supportive of one another.
I said I didn’t want to get into a work-for-hire debate, so let me use another analogy. Is DC being selfish when the editors make a writer rework his scripts to the point where the writer feels he has to quit, a là George Pérez among several others? That’s not only placing the editorial direction over the creative vision of the writer—serving what they see as the needs of the character above the creativity of the creator—but hamstringing a writer’s ability to do his job to the best of his ability.
You can say, “Well, it’s the company’s characters. They have the right to do whatever they want.” But why can’t the creators say, “We can do better stories when we’re allowed to do what we want. Follow us over to these other books, and we’ll show you what we mean”?
If you’ve read all of my posts on this thread, you’ll know I’m not advocating that you only follow creators, or that you should always buy everything your favorite creator does. And the thing is, I don’t know any creators who advocate that either (though I’m sure they appreciate those that do). I’m sure there are some out there, but if so they are few and far between. But I do take exception to the idea that a creator trying to promote his own work is being any more selfish than anyone else in any business who is trying to get consumers to buy their product.
This is feeling like a multi-layer discussion. I think there's a difference between Alex Ross saying "keep an eye out for Chris Robeson's work. His Shadow stuff is amazing, but he's a great reader on his independent work" vs "DC under pays & under appreciates my talents. You should be buying my work from Dynamite because they appreciate & showcase my work."
Also, as a writer/artist, isn't it presumed they'll be some level of censorship on your work on another company's property? As a preview to something I have coming up; when NOW comics started their Green Hornet series, Ron Fortier had a female Kato. Green Hornet, Inc had the company change it back to the Bruce Lee Kato a few issues later.
It seems like certain writers (such as Morrison) does have the ability to do what they want with a character, but to some extent any time you're paid for work you're going to be given parameters. To work where I do, there are certain parameters I must adhere to. I have to check in with my supervisor daily, something I greatly despise. There are cases I'd like to work 1 way, but its not how the company does things. I understand its part of working for the company.
Throwing in another sports example, the Boston Bruins play two-way players (players who play defense AND offense.) The players who thrive on the team adapts to playing both. Some players who've been traded or not resigned only focus on 1 way of playing.
M
I think it should be a multi-layered discussion, as it is a multi-layered topic. Look, these days every creator knows going in that there are certain things they can do, and certain things they can’t. They have discussions with their editors to settle on a direction for the book before ever setting pen to paper. Whenever you hear creators complain about a company or an editor—which isn’t very often—it’s usually because editorial interference has gone above and beyond the norm. They expect to have to make a certain amount of compromises and changes to their work, but there is a line where enough is enough.
At some point, if editorial is continually asking for changes, the creator is going to ask, “Why did you hire me for this job when you don’t want what I have to offer?” It becomes a waste of time they could have spent working on something else. Like the recent case of Kevin Maguire turning down an X-Men project to do Justice League 3000, only to get fired after drawing the first issue. I’m sure DC paid him for his work, but his work won’t be published, so he won’t get royalties from it—something he may have gotten had he chosen to do the X-Men project instead.
The only reason you don’t hear a lot of comments like, “Company X under-appreciates my talents, you should read this instead,” is, one, most creators are decent people and aren’t going to act like jerks about it because they understand the business, and, two, because no one wants to burn their bridges and get blackballed from a company. But the sentiment is quite often there.
Most people call that “professionalism,” but I find that professionalism can often be defined as: covering up for someone who makes more money than you so that you still have a job at the end of the day. Many times when you hear someone say, “Yeah, So-and-So’s work for Company X is very good, but this creator-owned project he’s doing kicks butt,” it’s their subtle way of saying, “You should read what he’s able to do when he doesn’t have his hands tied behind his back,” even if it isn’t overtly intended as such.
And as to your Bruins reference, they wouldn’t bring in someone like Thomas Vanek and expect him to suddenly become a back-checker. You bring in Vanek to score, and try to encourage him to back check every once in a while, and you put an exceptional defensive forward on his line to compensate. If you’re a GM with any sense, you bring in the players that will fit your system, or you change your system to fit the players you are stuck with. Bringing in square pegs to fit in your round holes is a sign of poor management. If the Bruins signed Vanek and then told him, “If you don’t back check, you don’t play,” he would have every right to be pissed off. That’s not his game. That’s not allowing him to play to his strengths, and you’ll probably end up with a weaker team for it.
But perhaps we’re drifting a little too far from the topic. This is becoming more, “When it’s time for a creator to call it quits with a character.”
Comments
What a strange, dangerous coalition.
B-)
Polybags and a month of 3D covers are now the exception, often laughed at, not the rule.
The difference is that in the 90s the speculator market was served to the exclusion of everything else. I was there. At that time finding quality in the Big 2 was a needle in a haystack. Now, there is plenty that is great. Heck, even the Eisner voters end up giving awards to a book about Hawkeye. And, sure, a book that "counts" or has multiple covers is going to beat Hawkeye in the charts. I get your point that behavior will rule the top of the charts.
But who cares? This is not about the creatively best book having to sell the very best. My point is that we are in a market where the there is a market, even in corporate superhero books, for things like Hawkeye. That it exists at all puts now ahead of the 90s.
And, more importantly, we do have more diversity of product now. In the 90s many (most?) of the publishers outside the Big 2 were in the same race to the bottom. Now? Even skipping all the other publishers and focusing on Image alone we have more choices of genre, and more (and, personally, I would say better) voices at the table than back in the 90s.
And that is just talking print. Not getting into the world of webcomics or digital comics from publishers like Monkeybrain on offer.
I know this is an overly broad aside, but at the end of the day, as a comics reader in 2013 I'm pretty happy. I would imagine it would be different if I had a bigger stake- if I were a publisher, a retailer, a creator. i'm not. But as a reader I am spoiled for choice. I've got access to more that I want to read than I've got time for. And hell, looking at the top 21 from last month, I read a lot of those (to be fair, some borrowed) and most of them were pretty entertaining. That was not my experience with most of what I bought in 1993.
Amidst a lot of the naysaying and griping we can do around here, I think it is sometime worth taking a moment to remember the choices we have right now.
And I will loop it around to the earlier conversation- in 1993 I was buying a lot of these same characters, but buying less because the creative on those books was less enjoyable. 1993 was around the time I started dropping a lot of characters I had been reading most of my life. god knows I had the time, and even the money. Now? i wish I had time to read even more than I do. And mostly these characters are the same. It is the creators that are making the difference in my enthusiasm.
Speaking of which... will do one more and then it's off to read funnybooks instead of type about them.
The first time I read Ultimate Spider-man, it was when Moon Knight was introduced. The art was great, but I couldn't stand Bendis' dialogue. The art work was a bonus to reading this particular storyline with a character I wanted to read. I went back to get the Black Cat storyline. Again, liked the art, couldn't stand the dialogue. Despite the art, I didn't get any other issue of the series. I only cared to read about Moon Knight & Black Cat.
If Ramos did the art for Bendis' Moon Knight series, I'd still buy it because of the character.
When I stopped reading Batman, I thought the art was beautiful. It was the direction of the character that turned me away. Not even so much the writing style of Morrison, but the direction; Morrison's JLA Batman was a great read.
M
The Snyder-Capullo N52 Batman is the first time I've ever not only picked up the book on a monthly basis, but have been subscribing to it for the past year and a half. And it isn't because I was a huge Snyder/Capullo fanboy...I didn't know who the former was and all I knew from Capullo was he was Todd McFarlane v 2.0 back in the day. Still...word of mouth...on here and elsewhere, was that of all the N52 Batbooks - Batman was the good one. So I gave it a day in court...and yes, was suitably blown away by it.
Batman sells Batman, I agree. But Batman will always sell Batman. It's when you get down to the nitty gritty of it and try to determine what of Batman that brand alone will sell, that you have to consider creative teams.
But I think even stories of when you stopped reading a book because a creator drove you out is just another version of what I am talking about. Ultimate Spider-Man was still Spider-Man, but the dialogue drove you away. Just as with examples of it being the character WITH the creators that sell and continue to sell the books, it can be the character WITH creators you don't like that get you stop buying.
So to circle back to that Liefeld quote, (and mix it with the old breakup line), in that case, "It wasn't Batman, it was YOU".
My favorite character has been The Thing but until recently I was never a fan of the Fantastic 4. It was always when he was in a team-up or when he occasionally has his own series (Dan Slott's a few years ago is one of my favorites) Recently though I've been borrowing the new series and even got #8 myself.
So the creator is helping me follow the character.
M
M
I agree that for most comic book readers, and for consumers of most pop entertainment in general, yes, the characters come first. That’s been proven over and over. But it’s not a one or the other proposition. Great characters need great creators, and great creators need great characters. If Scott Lobdell and Rob Liefeld were the best the industry had to offer, I can safely say that I would not be reading comics. Likewise, if Leapfrog (sorry all you Leapfrog fans) was the best character the industry had to offer, I’m not sure even Alan Moore could keep me interested (though I’d like to see him try) for more than a mini-series or two.
To say one is more important than the other is ridiculous in my mind. @Matt, I don’t know if you enjoyed or even have read Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams Batman stories, but if they had not come along and darkened up the Dark Knight, and the character had stayed the same as he had been through the ’50s and ’60s, I think it’s safe to say you would not be a Batman fan. Likewise, you said you don’t like Green Arrow, so you probably wouldn’t like Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams’ run on Green Lantern/Green Arrow, even though they were taking a similar approach of making street-level stories. So, obviously it wasn’t those creators and their approach alone that did the trick. It was the juxtaposition of those two creators and that particular character that resulted in a character you have become attached to.
And, yes, I agree that Batman sells Batman to a large degree. But let’s not forget that Batman was on the verge of cancellation in the ’60s before Carmine Infantino was brought in to save the title. It was the change of direction in the writing and the art brought on by Julius Schwartz and Carmine (and shortly thereafter a brief but significant bump by the TV show that Matt hates so much) that kept the character going, so that it could then be changed again by O’Neil and Adams into the character that Matt enjoys, and which has so greatly informed the version of the character that thrives today.
But there are some who are arguing the Liefeld point of 'It's not you. It's Batman.' And I just don't think it is that simple. There is lots of Batman on offer. But some Batman sells more than other Batman. Just like some Superman sells more than other Superman. Superman Unchained is by no means the historical high seller or "main" book. The actual title of it is not simply Superman, in fact, it is sort of a wonky name for a book, if you ask me. But it still sold far and above the other Superman books, and even many of the Bat books. Because it is Superman, yes, but also because it is Superman with Jim Lee and Scott Snyder. Talent who bring their own crowd.
I think where some people are going wrong, in my opinion, is seeing the '(Creator) doesn't sell Batman, Batman sells Batman' as an either/or. But that is a false binary. It is packaging. Package Snyder and Capullo with Batman; or Snyder and Lee with Superman, and you will sell a LOT of Batman and Superman Unchained. And that is not the creator being selfish or putting themselves over the characters. What they are doing is additive. A collaboration. That is these creators adding their smaller brand to the larger brand of Batman or Superman. They are not in competition. They are working WITH these mega brands.
It is like the packaging that goes on with name actors and tentpole movies, especially the ones that are built on existing or proven content. You could try to parse out what sold Iron Man. Was it Iron Man? Or was it Robert Downey Jr.? Was it even Marvel as a brand? But, you know what, the people who made it knew they paid for and had all of that: they were adding the Robert Downey Jr. brand to their Iron Man brand, under their Marvel brand umbrella. And off they went. RDJ didn't have to compete with Iron Man, or worry about whether or not he was putting himself before the character. They collaborated. Aaaaaand it worked out. You know what I mean?
There are also a few people here talking about being endlessly loyal to the creator and buying everything they have ever done. I don't think people should do that, it's always good to judge by gut impulse on whether or not you will enjoy something. Do you like the subject matter to begin with?
There is a healthy medium between all of these things.
But I actually think being loyal to a creative individual makes MORE sense than being loyal to a particular corporate character that has been and will continue to be worked on by a series of people. If you love the work of a given creative person, let's say you love their voice, what they do, their point of view, there is probably more chance, and more rewards, to be had in tracking the rest of their creative career than would come from deciding, 'I like this concept for a character, and will follow THAT no matter what'. You know what I mean? Even when that creative person might diversify, branch out, or do something very different than what they have done before.
By contrast, committing to a character, or even limiting yourself to certain subject matter. Well, if that concept is owned by a corporation and overseen by a series of stewards, then what are the odds that a lifetime of that work will be what you want?
I am not explaining it very well, but let me put it this way-- if I love, say, Darwyn Cooke, Mike Mignola, Brian K. Vaughan, or Garth Ennis. And I decide, therefore, that I will read, or at least try, anything they produce. Then I would guess my rate of return on that investment. The amount that I am likely to ENJOY, is probably going to be higher than, say, if I decide that, because I have enjoyed a lot of Batman or Punisher in the past that I am going to read, or at least try, ANYTHING those characters appear in. You know what I mean?
Both of those kinds of loyalty will lead to peaks and valleys. But I actually think being loyal to a creative person's output and following their career from thing to thing is likely a better bet than tracking the publication history of a given property.
At least, I feel that plan has worked out better for how I've spent my money.
And, whether it is comics or other mediums, I like getting the sense of a creative person's whole career. For example, John Updike is my favorite novelist. And there was a point where I decided I would read his complete works (well, okay, all his novels and his poetry. I gave myself an out on his books of essays and that &$(&ing book about golfing. Even I have limits!) And within that body of work there were things I enjoyed more than others. But I also appreciate what came of getting a complete picture of his body of work.
I did the same thing with Kurt Vonnegut as a freshman in college. I read all his books in chronological order by publishing date over the course of that year, so I could get a better sense of how he grew and changed as a writer over the course of time. In a lot of ways, I got as much out of that aspect of reading his books as I did the actual stories.
But if you aren't satisfied? Try something different. I try to find books that about things I like to read about. I follow a few creators to a project, but if the story doesn't work for me I don't hold it against them. I just move on. I ask for suggestions when I'm not reading anything new. And sometimes, I just pick something because I like the cover. That's why I read Y: The Last Man.
I feel like reading comics (or any kind of reading/watching/listening) should be about the joy discovery. Sometimes its about discovering what happens next with your favorite character. Sometimes its about the exploration of themes, or the solving of a mystery, or the beauty of the art. And when that joy is gone its time to stop and try something new. It doesn't always work out, but when it does its spectacular.
I am not sure if your Siegel and Shuster is a good example. Didn't they give up some rights to the character once they created him for DC? I sold something on eBay for a nice chunk of change. I can't go back and tell the buyer I want more because I saw someone else on eBay sold the same item for even more. At some point the deal made is the deal made. Do I think Siegel and Shuster got screwed out of what they could stand to get? Sure, but the market for the character or medium could've bottomed out in the 70s then Superman is worth a lot less. In turn, I don't think a company can overpay for a character, then if comeback and ask for money back if the character grossly undersold for the company.
I think if Bob Kane knew that The Dark Knight and Nolan's trilogy would gross well over a $1 billion, he'd have made an even bigger deal with the character initially. I think Kane was well paid, BUT I know he could've made a lot more. To some extent, a creator knows the he/she does on a character will net the company more than the creator. Saying I should follow Joe Shmoe with all of his projects, even if he works on a character I cannot stand, JUST because he is working on it, seems too self-promoting (how's that instead of selfish) for me. It's like we're to start a Shmoe cult and only buy him.
Much like with comics, I don't follow actors, directors, writers, etc on every show or movie they do. I love Anne Hathaway, but I'm not seeing Les Mis. I enjoyed James Cameron's earlier movies, but I'm not wasting my time with Avatar (partly because it started this 3D fad I can't stand.)
Also, having the collector mentality, I want to know I have a full run of Batman that goes back hundreds of issues instead of scattered issues because of a specific creator working on it. It feels more complete that a sample. Plus, if storylines reference a prior creator's storyline, I'd have the material to reread it.
M.
Whereas I can choose to follow a creator and a character at the same time. I can read Hickman's Avengers books and buy his Image books at the same time. He is not asking me to leave one to follow the other.
Each sport is like a different company
Each team is like a different title
Each player is like a creator
Each season is like a new storyline
There are trades done pre-season, post-season, & during the season. Players who are free agents can choose what team (of those offering a spot) to play for. Mostly by money, but sometimes about greater chance for a championship or even teammates.
In NFL, players can get cut at anytime. Once cut, they can go elsewhere.
I could do a whole podcast ep showing how both fan bases do the same type of things, but here I will only mention I know a bunch of people who follow players instead of teams. They have a ton of former team stuff.
M
You did the who with the what now?
A creator saying, “Follow creators,” isn’t saying, “Follow me.” They’re saying, “Follow us.” For all the egos in the industry—as you will find in any industry—for the most part comic book creators are very supportive of one another.
I said I didn’t want to get into a work-for-hire debate, so let me use another analogy. Is DC being selfish when the editors make a writer rework his scripts to the point where the writer feels he has to quit, a là George Pérez among several others? That’s not only placing the editorial direction over the creative vision of the writer—serving what they see as the needs of the character above the creativity of the creator—but hamstringing a writer’s ability to do his job to the best of his ability.
You can say, “Well, it’s the company’s characters. They have the right to do whatever they want.” But why can’t the creators say, “We can do better stories when we’re allowed to do what we want. Follow us over to these other books, and we’ll show you what we mean”?
If you’ve read all of my posts on this thread, you’ll know I’m not advocating that you only follow creators, or that you should always buy everything your favorite creator does. And the thing is, I don’t know any creators who advocate that either (though I’m sure they appreciate those that do). I’m sure there are some out there, but if so they are few and far between. But I do take exception to the idea that a creator trying to promote his own work is being any more selfish than anyone else in any business who is trying to get consumers to buy their product.
Also, as a writer/artist, isn't it presumed they'll be some level of censorship on your work on another company's property? As a preview to something I have coming up; when NOW comics started their Green Hornet series, Ron Fortier had a female Kato. Green Hornet, Inc had the company change it back to the Bruce Lee Kato a few issues later.
It seems like certain writers (such as Morrison) does have the ability to do what they want with a character, but to some extent any time you're paid for work you're going to be given parameters. To work where I do, there are certain parameters I must adhere to. I have to check in with my supervisor daily, something I greatly despise. There are cases I'd like to work 1 way, but its not how the company does things. I understand its part of working for the company.
Throwing in another sports example, the Boston Bruins play two-way players (players who play defense AND offense.) The players who thrive on the team adapts to playing both. Some players who've been traded or not resigned only focus on 1 way of playing.
M
At some point, if editorial is continually asking for changes, the creator is going to ask, “Why did you hire me for this job when you don’t want what I have to offer?” It becomes a waste of time they could have spent working on something else. Like the recent case of Kevin Maguire turning down an X-Men project to do Justice League 3000, only to get fired after drawing the first issue. I’m sure DC paid him for his work, but his work won’t be published, so he won’t get royalties from it—something he may have gotten had he chosen to do the X-Men project instead.
The only reason you don’t hear a lot of comments like, “Company X under-appreciates my talents, you should read this instead,” is, one, most creators are decent people and aren’t going to act like jerks about it because they understand the business, and, two, because no one wants to burn their bridges and get blackballed from a company. But the sentiment is quite often there.
Most people call that “professionalism,” but I find that professionalism can often be defined as: covering up for someone who makes more money than you so that you still have a job at the end of the day. Many times when you hear someone say, “Yeah, So-and-So’s work for Company X is very good, but this creator-owned project he’s doing kicks butt,” it’s their subtle way of saying, “You should read what he’s able to do when he doesn’t have his hands tied behind his back,” even if it isn’t overtly intended as such.
And as to your Bruins reference, they wouldn’t bring in someone like Thomas Vanek and expect him to suddenly become a back-checker. You bring in Vanek to score, and try to encourage him to back check every once in a while, and you put an exceptional defensive forward on his line to compensate. If you’re a GM with any sense, you bring in the players that will fit your system, or you change your system to fit the players you are stuck with. Bringing in square pegs to fit in your round holes is a sign of poor management. If the Bruins signed Vanek and then told him, “If you don’t back check, you don’t play,” he would have every right to be pissed off. That’s not his game. That’s not allowing him to play to his strengths, and you’ll probably end up with a weaker team for it.
But perhaps we’re drifting a little too far from the topic. This is becoming more, “When it’s time for a creator to call it quits with a character.”