I'm of the school that neither party is coming out of this smelling of roses. As an employer I've had to sack people after they've resigned because they shot their mouth off and I can't help thinking that this is a creator seeking to gain notoriety and column inches.
I don't want to name names but I had a personal conversation with a very well known writer/artist from the 70's until today and he had some extremely scathing things to say about the current state of DC. A lot of it echoed Chris' comments, actually probably worse than what he said. He even stated he threatened to quit just recently and they gave in but guaranteed if it wasn't someone of his caliber they would not have. They have minimized and been quite unfriendly to their creative folks in a number of ways, it seems like they have tried to corporatize the process and turn decisions into committees without involving the writers or artists and forcing major changes and overhauls during or after projects are completed or semi-completed requiring big re-workings and wasted effort all over the place.
I ran my thoughts and views past him on the current state of indie/creator owned and the big two's view on creative professionals and he agreed 100%, which was nice to hear but in a sad way. There is a lot of discontent and more brewing, I think this is just the first one we will be hearing about of many soon unfortunately. It is a real shame to hear an icon being treated this way so I would be comfortable saying the Chris was more than justified and probably held back if anything. Sorry to be vague but the conversation was off the record but I thought it might help shed some additional light on things.
I don't want to name names but I had a personal conversation with a very well known writer/artist from the 70's until today and he had some extremely scathing things to say about the current state of DC.
More and more, DC is becoming Marvel around 1995-6, when Marvel editors would talk at conventions about how it was the characters and not the creators who mattered. As I look at who they are bringing in, I see more and more names from Marvel around that time.
Anyone ready for a 2 - 3 years long clone saga on Batman or Superman?
Add to that the little bomb that Heidi MacDonald dropped in this article where creators feel they are doing a better job on the Watchmen characters than Moore and Gibbons as well as their contempt for creators bubbling through in their answers is shocking.
I'll be honest, I have two thoughts on the recent developments:
1) If I were at Marvel, I would be making sure people knew of the Icon line and that creators get to work on media projects that can add to their income. 2) If I were a retailer, I could not diversify fast enough.
@SolitaireRose, arrgghhh, it is literally killing me to not be able to just throw down the details from my conversation, but any part of them will instantly give away who it is with no question. I can say that the entire New 52 was entirely different than people think from the creative side, I wasn't shocked but everything made more sense, especially titles that were complete dogs for seemingly no reason. There was/is a reason.
That article actually skirts around some of the scoop I got and is pretty close to beginning to expose some of it. I can say that if/when one of the bigger names finally has enough and speaks out it is going to blow the doors off of DC and their image (pun not intended). There are hints and clues out in the open but I hadn't connected the dots until my recent interaction. Books being printed without the involvement of the creative folks, books being ruined by being "written" by committee other than the writer, same for art... There is one thing Marvel could do to snag a few big names from DC and it has nothing to do with comics strangely enough. They may wise up on that, we'll see, the word is out and known by them.
I agree with what you are saying and you are pretty hot in a few comments there. The goal right now from both sides appears to be to flog a few big names (meaningful or not) while basically outsourcing (insourcing?) and taking advantage of cheap, young, hungry "talent" and disposing of them if and when they ask for more or dare to speak up.
I knew from a podcast (maybe ifanboy) a while back with an interview with Cully Hamner about how his and Lee's vision is to create a digital library and 3D models of key buildings and props so that they didn't even need artists to crap out homogeneous books... and he was genuinely excited by this, that it was going to be a rapid decline. I wish DC nothing but the worst and they now join Marvel in that I will not be buying another thing from them, and anything I have to read will be bought second-hand so not one dime goes to them from me.
Whew! This has really become a powderkeg, hasn't it? Brief (for me) thoughts...
1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will be buying the Darwyn Cooke/Amanda Conner Before Watchmen book. I'm sorry that's the comic book equivalent of a Reese's Cup for me. Now having said that, I would be *infinitely more excited* to be buying an original book that featured this dynamic duo on it.
2) Don't treat your talent like shit and they won't shit on you when they've had enough of you.
3) I'm a huge fan of character over 'celebrity' artist. However, I'm a bigger fan of quality over phoning it in. If you want to become character-centric with your business model, I'm all for it, but you have to make the books good or I'm still not going to buy them - and that means treating your creators well enough that they're willing to give you their best.
4) Never bad-mouth your company while you still have work they haven't paid you for. Been facebook following a former DC-artist who no doubt shared Robeson's feelings. The difference? He's still civil about it and simply said there were some situations that he didn't care for, and that he's happy to be working on his own stuff now (and I'm excited to buy it!)
5) Indie books are still your best entertainment value...particularly when they're mine. :)
1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will be buying the Darwyn Cooke/Amanda Conner Before Watchmen book. I'm sorry that's the comic book equivalent of a Reese's Cup for me. Now having said that, I would be *infinitely more excited* to be buying an original book that featured this dynamic duo on it.
I don't think you should ever have to apologize for wanting to buy a book that appeals to you.
I have to confess to being amused by Jim "Image Rebel" Lee becoming Mr. Corporation Man.
Always remember, a large portion of the free-love hippie flower children of the late 60s evolved into the corporate-whore "I got mine" baby boom bastards we love to hate these days.
@Torchsong and many didn't. I'm not sure what that means or says about anything though aside from trying to paint a whole generation that at least stood up and tried to change some of the injustices around them with a pretty broad brush. Were some in it for just the drugs and sex? Sure. Did others actually make a difference? Yes.
I have to confess to being amused by Jim "Image Rebel" Lee becoming Mr. Corporation Man.
If I'm correct, Jim Lee wasn't really one of the "Image Rebels." From what I've read of the creation of Image, he was just along for the ride. McFarlane, Leifeld, Larsen and Valentino were more of the Image rebels and they recruited Silvestri, Lee and Portacio. I believe Silvestri was actually about to pitch Cyberforce as an X-Men spin-off but McFarlane found out about it and told him not to until he could get a chance to talk to him and it was at a Marvel retreat (ironically enough) that they brought them on board.
@SolitaireRose, arrgghhh, it is literally killing me to not be able to just throw down the details from my conversation, but any part of them will instantly give away who it is with no question.
lol, you think it's killing you? I'm dying to know who you're talking about. Although I do know it's someone involved in the New 52, someone who you considered in another thread a "legend," someone who is a writer and an artist and someone who has been around since the 70s. That does narrow it down. We've got Giffen and Perez. Was Dan Jurgens around in the 70s? I don't know if I'd consider him a "legend," but you could consider him one if for no other reason than his longevity (and he did draw Death of Superman IIRC which was definitely a piece of comics history). There's Paul Levitz but he's not an artist. I guess since he was working on Odyssey at the time, Neal Adams could have insight into how the company works, except (1) I've read some of his writing and I think I'd refer to him as an "artist" rather than an "artist/writer" (2) he's outspoken enough that it would be on the internet by now. I'm not completely ruling him out though. I know he's got that OGN coming, but Walt Simonson isn't really involved much at DC, is he?
I suppose I should stop or I'm going to get someone in trouble.
I was also reading some of the threads regarding this story over on Bleeding Cool. Normally... let's just say I vastly prefer this forum to that one, but Brian Wood was making a number of posts over there and he was definitely keeping things "professional" and not going into too many details, but it sounds like he was very unhappy with the way things are running at DC and is much happier right now with his creator owned work and his work at Marvel. Of course, creators are always more happy with creator owned work, but the fact that he's not doing anything more at Vertigo and the fact that he is still doing WFH at Marvel shows that there's something at DC he's not happy with.
This stuff will eventually get out and I'm very very curious to hear about it.
Were some in it for just the drugs and sex? Sure. Did others actually make a difference? Yes.
I think that's the only point he was trying to make - a reminder that what someone stands for in youthful idealism is not always what they stand for when they have a chance to make money off of it and be on the other end. He didn't say "all" or even "most" but "a large portion." I think any inferences regarding "a whole generation" would be on the part of the reader not the writer.
I have to confess to being amused by Jim "Image Rebel" Lee becoming Mr. Corporation Man.
If I'm correct, Jim Lee wasn't really one of the "Image Rebels." From what I've read of the creation of Image, he was just along for the ride. McFarlane, Leifeld, Larsen and Valentino were more of the Image rebels and they recruited Silvestri, Lee and Portacio. I believe Silvestri was actually about to pitch Cyberforce as an X-Men spin-off but McFarlane found out about it and told him not to until he could get a chance to talk to him and it was at a Marvel retreat (ironically enough) that they brought them on board.
Ah. Consider me schooled. Admittedly, I was mostly out of the loop on the whole Image Revolution. I was reading very few mainstream comics and no Marvels at the time. I think the only early Image books I bought were Giffen's Trencher and Sim's issue of Spawn.
I have to confess to being amused by Jim "Image Rebel" Lee becoming Mr. Corporation Man.
If I'm correct, Jim Lee wasn't really one of the "Image Rebels." From what I've read of the creation of Image, he was just along for the ride. McFarlane, Leifeld, Larsen and Valentino were more of the Image rebels and they recruited Silvestri, Lee and Portacio. I believe Silvestri was actually about to pitch Cyberforce as an X-Men spin-off but McFarlane found out about it and told him not to until he could get a chance to talk to him and it was at a Marvel retreat (ironically enough) that they brought them on board.
Ah. Consider me schooled. Admittedly, I was mostly out of the loop on the whole Image Revolution. I was reading very few mainstream comics and no Marvels at the time. I think the only early Image books I bought were Giffen's Trencher and Sim's issue of Spawn.
I read a lot of Image at the time, but wasn't plugged into the behind-the-scenes world and knew nothing of most of this other than what was in the letter columns. Recently, I read a write-up about a history of Image Comics talk at the recent Image Expo and that was where I learned more of this stuff. I probably have some of the details wrong, but I'm pretty certain that Jim Lee was one of the ones who wasn't as big into the creators right side, but was just along for fun (and the money). I remember that because reading the account knowing in hindsight of what happened to WildStorm, it made perfect sense.
And, heck, even decades before Image Founder Jim Lee became a WB Company Man, there were more outspoken Image Founders who, within a year or two of the founding of Image were doing to their studio workers the same sorts of things that the Big Two had just been doing to them.
I have to confess to being amused by Jim "Image Rebel" Lee becoming Mr. Corporation Man.
If I'm correct, Jim Lee wasn't really one of the "Image Rebels." From what I've read of the creation of Image, he was just along for the ride. McFarlane, Leifeld, Larsen and Valentino were more of the Image rebels and they recruited Silvestri, Lee and Portacio. I believe Silvestri was actually about to pitch Cyberforce as an X-Men spin-off but McFarlane found out about it and told him not to until he could get a chance to talk to him and it was at a Marvel retreat (ironically enough) that they brought them on board.
Ah. Consider me schooled. Admittedly, I was mostly out of the loop on the whole Image Revolution. I was reading very few mainstream comics and no Marvels at the time. I think the only early Image books I bought were Giffen's Trencher and Sim's issue of Spawn.
I read a lot of Image at the time, but wasn't plugged into the behind-the-scenes world and knew nothing of most of this other than what was in the letter columns. Recently, I read a write-up about a history of Image Comics talk at the recent Image Expo and that was where I learned more of this stuff. I probably have some of the details wrong, but I'm pretty certain that Jim Lee was one of the ones who wasn't as big into the creators right side, but was just along for fun (and the money). I remember that because reading the account knowing in hindsight of what happened to WildStorm, it made perfect sense.
Read George Khoury's Image Comics: The Road to Independence from TwoMorrows. It's a fascinating read. Everything is cyclical, and we're coming around to another revolution.
And, heck, even decades before Image Founder Jim Lee became a WB Company Man, there were more outspoken Image Founders who, within a year or two of the founding of Image were doing to their studio workers the same sorts of things that the Big Two had just been doing to them.
And, not to cross the streams, but I thought it might make for an interesting comparison (with a tip of the hat the the comments section of The Beat)--
And, not to cross the streams, but I thought it might make for an interesting comparison (with a tip of the hat the the comments section of The Beat)--
Comments
I ran my thoughts and views past him on the current state of indie/creator owned and the big two's view on creative professionals and he agreed 100%, which was nice to hear but in a sad way. There is a lot of discontent and more brewing, I think this is just the first one we will be hearing about of many soon unfortunately. It is a real shame to hear an icon being treated this way so I would be comfortable saying the Chris was more than justified and probably held back if anything. Sorry to be vague but the conversation was off the record but I thought it might help shed some additional light on things.
I sense a civil war looming.
Followed by a rise of an empire.
With a few prequels thrown in.
Anyone ready for a 2 - 3 years long clone saga on Batman or Superman?
Add to that the little bomb that Heidi MacDonald dropped in this article where creators feel they are doing a better job on the Watchmen characters than Moore and Gibbons as well as their contempt for creators bubbling through in their answers is shocking.
I'll be honest, I have two thoughts on the recent developments:
1) If I were at Marvel, I would be making sure people knew of the Icon line and that creators get to work on media projects that can add to their income.
2) If I were a retailer, I could not diversify fast enough.
That article actually skirts around some of the scoop I got and is pretty close to beginning to expose some of it. I can say that if/when one of the bigger names finally has enough and speaks out it is going to blow the doors off of DC and their image (pun not intended). There are hints and clues out in the open but I hadn't connected the dots until my recent interaction. Books being printed without the involvement of the creative folks, books being ruined by being "written" by committee other than the writer, same for art... There is one thing Marvel could do to snag a few big names from DC and it has nothing to do with comics strangely enough. They may wise up on that, we'll see, the word is out and known by them.
I agree with what you are saying and you are pretty hot in a few comments there. The goal right now from both sides appears to be to flog a few big names (meaningful or not) while basically outsourcing (insourcing?) and taking advantage of cheap, young, hungry "talent" and disposing of them if and when they ask for more or dare to speak up.
I knew from a podcast (maybe ifanboy) a while back with an interview with Cully Hamner about how his and Lee's vision is to create a digital library and 3D models of key buildings and props so that they didn't even need artists to crap out homogeneous books... and he was genuinely excited by this, that it was going to be a rapid decline. I wish DC nothing but the worst and they now join Marvel in that I will not be buying another thing from them, and anything I have to read will be bought second-hand so not one dime goes to them from me.
1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will be buying the Darwyn Cooke/Amanda Conner Before Watchmen book. I'm sorry that's the comic book equivalent of a Reese's Cup for me. Now having said that, I would be *infinitely more excited* to be buying an original book that featured this dynamic duo on it.
2) Don't treat your talent like shit and they won't shit on you when they've had enough of you.
3) I'm a huge fan of character over 'celebrity' artist. However, I'm a bigger fan of quality over phoning it in. If you want to become character-centric with your business model, I'm all for it, but you have to make the books good or I'm still not going to buy them - and that means treating your creators well enough that they're willing to give you their best.
4) Never bad-mouth your company while you still have work they haven't paid you for. Been facebook following a former DC-artist who no doubt shared Robeson's feelings. The difference? He's still civil about it and simply said there were some situations that he didn't care for, and that he's happy to be working on his own stuff now (and I'm excited to buy it!)
5) Indie books are still your best entertainment value...particularly when they're mine. :)
I suppose I should stop or I'm going to get someone in trouble.
I was also reading some of the threads regarding this story over on Bleeding Cool. Normally... let's just say I vastly prefer this forum to that one, but Brian Wood was making a number of posts over there and he was definitely keeping things "professional" and not going into too many details, but it sounds like he was very unhappy with the way things are running at DC and is much happier right now with his creator owned work and his work at Marvel. Of course, creators are always more happy with creator owned work, but the fact that he's not doing anything more at Vertigo and the fact that he is still doing WFH at Marvel shows that there's something at DC he's not happy with.
This stuff will eventually get out and I'm very very curious to hear about it.
too much speculation and not enough info/hard facts are creeping into my fav. hobby.
I miss Marty... =((
And, heck, even decades before Image Founder Jim Lee became a WB Company Man, there were more outspoken Image Founders who, within a year or two of the founding of Image were doing to their studio workers the same sorts of things that the Big Two had just been doing to them.
A lot of them got there LONG before Lee did.
Here, from TCJ archives, is an interview with Alan Moore when he left DC in 1987.
While it hasn't changed my opinion (which was I don't care about the politics), I found it to be insightful.
An interview Chris regarding his depature and creator rights.