@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.
M
We are drifting from the topic, but this seems like some healthy discussion on the nature of comics as a whole. I personally find the sports metaphor to be lacking in a pretty major way. It seems like in comics people can make some pretty radical comebacks, or stay awesome longer than in sports. Bendis has had five or six careers times the average comic book writer in the span of his lifetime. Now creators like Vaughn and Fraction are starting to do the same thing. Also who could forget how long Peter David has been a really great writer.
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.”
I know the train is starting a derailment, but...
Actually, in Coach Julian's system, you're expected to work both or your Bruins career won't last long. Look at Phil Kessel. He didn't want to play D, so he didn't last long.
@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.
M
We are drifting from the topic, but this seems like some healthy discussion on the nature of comics as a whole. I personally find the sports metaphor to be lacking in a pretty major way. It seems like in comics people can make some pretty radical comebacks, or stay awesome longer than in sports. Bendis has had five or six careers times the average comic book writer in the span of his lifetime. Now creators like Vaughn and Fraction are starting to do the same thing. Also who could forget how long Peter David has been a really great writer.
Actually, there are players in each sport that have had long, productive careers. Brady, Jeter, Mariano Stivers, Mark Recci, Bird. Did you know, there's a 1995/96 episode of Seinfeld with a Jeter cameo?
There have even been players who've suffered injuries missing games, seasons, a year, and have returned with great careers.
On the surface, the 2 mediums are different, but once you really start looking at them, they have a lot in common.
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.”
I know the train is starting a derailment, but...
Actually, in Coach Julian's system, you're expected to work both or your Bruins career won't last long. Look at Phil Kessel. He didn't want to play D, so he didn't last long.
M
I know. That was exactly my point. If you have a set system in place, why would you bring in a player who you know isn’t going to fit your system?
Kessel isn't a good example in this case, because he was drafted before Julien took over as coach. The Bruins system changed after Kessel was already in the system. By bringing in Julien, the Bruins were committing to his system over the players on their roster.
What I was saying was more along the lines of, say, the Bruins trading with Toronto to get Kessel back and then still expecting him to become a great two-way player for them, even though they know that’s not where his strengths lie. Or in comics terms, you don’t hire Frank Miller to do a Batman story, and then tell him to write Batman ’66 instead of “Year One.”
Or in comics terms, you don’t hire Frank Miller to do a Batman story, and then tell him to write Batman ’66 instead of “Year One.”
Oh but how awesome would that be?
Robin: Holy Whiskers, Batman! That was a close shave! Batman: . . . Robin: What? Batman: Seriously, are you retarded, kid? Robin: Gosh Batman! I was just saying how we barely escaped Catwoman's clutches. Batman: I f*cked her. Robin: What?!? Batman: You heard me. Hard. In the pooper. Robin: Gosh! I shouldn't be hearing this! Are you feeling okay? Batman: I feel...alive...for the first time, perhaps. The night is my bitch now, and I'm going to take it and take it hard until it begs me to stop! Robin: Umm...heh...holy...ummm... Batman: Say it, Robin. It's very liberating... Robin: Holy shit, Batman? Batman: Atta boy. Now let's go beat the dogsnot out of that fatass Penguin and shove that cigarette filter where the sun don't shine.
Or in comics terms, you don’t hire Frank Miller to do a Batman story, and then tell him to write Batman ’66 instead of “Year One.”
Oh but how awesome would that be?
Robin: Holy Whiskers, Batman! That was a close shave! Batman: . . . Robin: What? Batman: Seriously, are you retarded, kid? Robin: Gosh Batman! I was just saying how we barely escaped Catwoman's clutches. Batman: I f*cked her. Robin: What?!? Batman: You heard me. Hard. In the pooper. Robin: Gosh! I shouldn't be hearing this! Are you feeling okay? Batman: I feel...alive...for the first time, perhaps. The night is my bitch now, and I'm going to take it and take it hard until it begs me to stop! Robin: Umm...heh...holy...ummm... Batman: Say it, Robin. It's very liberating... Robin: Holy shit, Batman? Batman: Atta boy. Now let's go beat the dogsnot out of that fatass Penguin and shove that cigarette filter where the sun don't shine.
Comments
Actually, in Coach Julian's system, you're expected to work both or your Bruins career won't last long. Look at Phil Kessel. He didn't want to play D, so he didn't last long.
M
There have even been players who've suffered injuries missing games, seasons, a year, and have returned with great careers.
On the surface, the 2 mediums are different, but once you really start looking at them, they have a lot in common.
M
Kessel isn't a good example in this case, because he was drafted before Julien took over as coach. The Bruins system changed after Kessel was already in the system. By bringing in Julien, the Bruins were committing to his system over the players on their roster.
What I was saying was more along the lines of, say, the Bruins trading with Toronto to get Kessel back and then still expecting him to become a great two-way player for them, even though they know that’s not where his strengths lie. Or in comics terms, you don’t hire Frank Miller to do a Batman story, and then tell him to write Batman ’66 instead of “Year One.”
Robin: Holy Whiskers, Batman! That was a close shave!
Batman: . . .
Robin: What?
Batman: Seriously, are you retarded, kid?
Robin: Gosh Batman! I was just saying how we barely escaped Catwoman's clutches.
Batman: I f*cked her.
Robin: What?!?
Batman: You heard me. Hard. In the pooper.
Robin: Gosh! I shouldn't be hearing this! Are you feeling okay?
Batman: I feel...alive...for the first time, perhaps. The night is my bitch now, and I'm going to take it and take it hard until it begs me to stop!
Robin: Umm...heh...holy...ummm...
Batman: Say it, Robin. It's very liberating...
Robin: Holy shit, Batman?
Batman: Atta boy. Now let's go beat the dogsnot out of that fatass Penguin and shove that cigarette filter where the sun don't shine.
I'm going to assume most of you have seen this by now (the Batman vs. Bane with 60s Robin) but if not...you need to.