Hope to be reading and enjoying dc again someday. maybe this is a step towards that and maybe not. Seriously doubt it's anything that'll return me fully to the fold or get me back to buying the vast amount of their product I once did.
It seems to me that DC doesn't do nearly as much as Marvel does in promoting their writers and artists. Other than Geoff Johns (who hardly writes at all) and Scott Snyder, are there as many big names you can think as Marvel seems to promote?
They might consider doing more to make their talent into stars, but perhaps it suits their business model not to.
I believe I heard the complete creative teams will be announced at an upcoming con within a month... maybe Wonder-Con? I think that con is just a week and a half away. Then it will be in the next Previews, as a separate book, a la Marvel, but only for that month.
I believe I heard the complete creative teams will be announced at an upcoming con within a month... maybe Wonder-Con? I think that con is just a week and a half away. Then it will be in the next Previews, as a separate book, a la Marvel, but only for that month.
I heard WonderCon too, and it makes sense as it's right down the road from their new home town of Burbank.
Other than Geoff Johns (who hardly writes at all) and Scott Snyder, are there as many big names you can think as Marvel seems to promote?
They might consider doing more to make their talent into stars, but perhaps it suits their business model not to.
DC historically was never a company to promote creators. Marvel wasn't either until the “Stan's Soapbox” columns in the ’60s. In the ’70s, DC touted the arrival of Jack Kirby with the “Kirby is Coming!” house ads, and it pushed Neal Adams by featuring him in a lot of the treasury editions, and later in the ’80s with the Baxter paper reprint series. Marv Wolfman and George Pérez got a big push once DC realized New Teen Titans was their one big seller. And of course there was Alan Moore and Frank Miller, and after the mid-’80s, I'd say DC began to publicize their creators just as much as Marvel.
The problem they have right now is that you can’t promote what you don't have. They just don't have a lot of names to get fans excited. They certainly made a big deal of getting Romita Jr., and I imagine they'll talk up Tom King now. But they don't have a lot to shout about right now.
And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.
And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.
They can certainly publicize them. But you're right, they can't promote what they don't have.
And just to add to the conversation...I don't care about "celebrity" comic book people. I just want good stories and good artwork.
And before anyone hits the "Quote" button, let's clarify what I'm talking about here: Obviously I have creators I like. I stand in line for them at conventions to get something signed, shake their hand, tell them I like what they do.
But it's more important to me that DC puts out a book I'm interested in buying, with characters I like and a plot that sounds interesting, than who's ultimately working on the title. Now if it *is* someone who's a big name in the funnybook world, that's great (although these days it carries its own baggage to have someone "famous" working on your book (ie. "How long is THIS going to last?")), but I buy my books from the big two because they have characters I like in them, or a story I think I'm going to enjoy.
Case in point - pre-order is in for a Scooby-Doo book because the Marvel Family is showing up in it. Don't care who's drawing it. Don't care who's writing it. Not a regular collector of the Scooby-Doo Team Up book. But the idea of the Mystery Machine gang teaming up with the Marvel Family sounds like a winner in my book.
I'd like to see the Big Guys put their energy back into telling me why I should be plopping my change down for a good story than why I should be supporting a particular creator. And again, it's nothing against the creators...they need to put a roof over their heads, and I get that...but they're not why I'm buying funnybooks.
Other than Geoff Johns (who hardly writes at all) and Scott Snyder, are there as many big names you can think as Marvel seems to promote?
They might consider doing more to make their talent into stars, but perhaps it suits their business model not to.
DC historically was never a company to promote creators. Marvel wasn't either until the “Stan's Soapbox” columns in the ’60s. In the ’70s, DC touted the arrival of Jack Kirby with the “Kirby is Coming!” house ads, and it pushed Neal Adams by featuring him in a lot of the treasury editions, and later in the ’80s with the Baxter paper reprint series. Marv Wolfman and George Pérez got a big push once DC realized New Teen Titans was their one big seller. And of course there was Alan Moore and Frank Miller, and after the mid-’80s, I'd say DC began to publicize their creators just as much as Marvel.
The problem they have right now is that you can’t promote what you don't have. They just don't have a lot of names to get fans excited. They certainly made a big deal of getting Romita Jr., and I imagine they'll talk up Tom King now. But they don't have a lot to shout about right now.
And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.
I wonder how much of that had to do with the fact that talent wasn't really exclusive? Why expend effort promoting a creator that might be competing with other titles for the same customer's dollars with books by a different publisher?
As @Torchsong indicates, there are some books that are all about the creator and there are others that are all about the character or the story.
Other than Geoff Johns (who hardly writes at all) and Scott Snyder, are there as many big names you can think as Marvel seems to promote?
They might consider doing more to make their talent into stars, but perhaps it suits their business model not to.
DC historically was never a company to promote creators. Marvel wasn't either until the “Stan's Soapbox” columns in the ’60s. In the ’70s, DC touted the arrival of Jack Kirby with the “Kirby is Coming!” house ads, and it pushed Neal Adams by featuring him in a lot of the treasury editions, and later in the ’80s with the Baxter paper reprint series. Marv Wolfman and George Pérez got a big push once DC realized New Teen Titans was their one big seller. And of course there was Alan Moore and Frank Miller, and after the mid-’80s, I'd say DC began to publicize their creators just as much as Marvel.
The problem they have right now is that you can’t promote what you don't have. They just don't have a lot of names to get fans excited. They certainly made a big deal of getting Romita Jr., and I imagine they'll talk up Tom King now. But they don't have a lot to shout about right now.
And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.
I wonder how much of that had to do with the fact that talent wasn't really exclusive? Why expend effort promoting a creator that might be competing with other titles for the same customer's dollars with books by a different publisher?
It has everything to do with it. Publishers know that creators will come and go, especially today as more go off to do creator-owned work. The only thing they control are the characters.
But DC and Marvel have both given more recognition to the creators in recent years. Collections like the Marvel Visionaries series and DC’s writer- and artist-centric Batman and Superman collections would never have even been considered 20 years ago. And even those are character specific in each volume—DAREDEVIL by Frank Miller, BATMAN by Jim Aparo, etc. I used to practically beg Bob Wayne for an Alex Toth archive of his random DC work back when they held the DC Archive Editions panels every year in San Diego in the early to mid-’00s. But that wasn't a project they would even put on the table at that time.
But at the same time, DC and Marvel both realize that there are certain creators who have followings, and will mean an uptick in sales (at least in the short term). So they've always skated that line of promoting the talent but keeping the focus on the characters.
But it's more important to me that DC puts out a book I'm interested in buying, with characters I like and a plot that sounds interesting, than who's ultimately working on the title. Now if it *is* someone who's a big name in the funnybook world, that's great (although these days it carries its own baggage to have someone "famous" working on your book (ie. "How long is THIS going to last?")), but I buy my books from the big two because they have characters I like in them, or a story I think I'm going to enjoy.
I don't think that makes you weird. Actually, I think that puts you in the majority of comic book readers.
I've said this before on these forums, but the majority of comic book readers follow characters over creators. I saw this first-hand while working at a comic shop. And as I've also said, I think that may be slowly changing, in large part thanks to the vast number of conventions along with social media where fans can more easily interact with creators. But as far as superhero fans go, I don't think the creator-followers will ever outnumber the character-followers.
But it's more important to me that DC puts out a book I'm interested in buying, with characters I like and a plot that sounds interesting, than who's ultimately working on the title. Now if it *is* someone who's a big name in the funnybook world, that's great (although these days it carries its own baggage to have someone "famous" working on your book (ie. "How long is THIS going to last?")), but I buy my books from the big two because they have characters I like in them, or a story I think I'm going to enjoy.
I don't think that makes you weird. Actually, I think that puts you in the majority of comic book readers.
I've said this before on these forums, but the majority of comic book readers follow characters over creators. I saw this first-hand while working at a comic shop. And as I've also said, I think that may be slowly changing, in large part thanks to the vast number of conventions along with social media where fans can more easily interact with creators. But as far as superhero fans go, I don't think the creator-followers will ever outnumber the character-followers.
I know I definitely follow some characters. Inside of superhero books I'll read pretty much and Spidey, FF, Iron Man or Cap book. Quality is rarely a factor. But outside of that, I need a reason to follow a book, an interesting concept or a great creative team. When I've jumped on a book for those reasons I usually don't keep up with them after that cycle is ended. Like I dropped Daredevil but I'm following Waid and Samnee to Black Widow. I'll read pretty much any Nick Spencer written book. I was sold on the Soule's She-Hulk concept, but not so much on his other work. I think a lot of us are motivated by all sort of things.
So I might check out Flash or GL, because I like the characters. But I'll also check out whatever book Tom King is doing. And maybe once the synopsis of the other books come out one or two will grab me the way Grayson did.
Apparently Killing Joke never happened now. Some group called The Fugue has been planting fake memories in Barbara Gordon for some time now.
Which means Oracle never happened.
Hope someone lets the JLA, the Birds of Prey, Dick Grayson, Marv and Wendy, and Stephanie know...
Dangit, DC, what the hell?
And so the unraveling begins...
As I'm sure you know, the Killing Joke was never meant to be canon, but the story resonated so strongly and with such impact, it crept into continuity anyway.
Wow. Speaking of the Killing Joke, I just read on CBR that Batman: The Animated Series veterans Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill will reprise their roles as Batman and the Joker a direct-to-video version of The Killing Joke. Also starring Batgirl voice Tara Strong, reprising Barbara Gordin, with Ray Wise voicing Commissioner James Gordon.
I know I definitely follow some characters. Inside of superhero books I'll read pretty much and Spidey, FF, Iron Man or Cap book. Quality is rarely a factor. But outside of that, I need a reason to follow a book, an interesting concept or a great creative team. When I've jumped on a book for those reasons I usually don't keep up with them after that cycle is ended. Like I dropped Daredevil but I'm following Waid and Samnee to Black Widow. I'll read pretty much any Nick Spencer written book. I was sold on the Soule's She-Hulk concept, but not so much on his other work. I think a lot of us are motivated by all sort of things.
So I might check out Flash or GL, because I like the characters. But I'll also check out whatever book Tom King is doing. And maybe once the synopsis of the other books come out one or two will grab me the way Grayson did.
I agree. I think discerning comic book fans have been drifting towards following creators more often in addition to characters for a while now. Perhaps the rise of the creator-owned comics (Image) has changed the paradigm a bit. And Marvel has long been known to promote their creators, mostly artists at first, but now they promote several of their writers; Remender, Aaron, Hickman, Slott, Soule, Spencer, Fraction, Hopeless, DeConnick, GW Wilson, North, Waid, Bendis, etc. (obviously many of these are not exclusive to Marvel)
When I think of stand-out DC writers, I think Snyder, Simone, Jergens, and King. That's about it. Then again, I'm more of a Marvel-guy, so maybe I'm overlooking it, but it seems DC just doesn't put nearly as much emphasis on creators as Marvel does, and I think that effects their numbers in an intangible way.
You bring up a good point with Image, because it's right there in the title of the concept - "CREATOR-owned"-so there's likely some draw to who is making the books there.
I'd say the best example for me would be someone like Brian K. Vaughan. If he's writing it, I'm more apt to check it out sight unseen than if a complete unknown were going to work on it. This despite my one big gripe about BKV - his inability to stick the landing and give me a really satisfying conclusion. In the long run it doesn't matter because with him the ride is always worth more than reaching the destination, and I know I'm in for a great read with his books.
Greg Rucka falls into that category as well.
By that same token, I've discovered a lot of great writers and artists via Image (and to be fair a lot of other companies from "the back of the Previews catalog") just based on the premise and the idea that the story itself sounds like a real winner.
I follow The Fantastic Four comic no matter what...well, I used to(thanks Marvel).
When it comes to creators there is only one writer and one artist that I buy whatever they do. I've said it before but Jonathan Hickman can write his grocery list on a napkin and I'd buy it. As for art I'm a sucker for Olivier Coipel's work and will buy any book he does.
Below those two I have a lot of artists and writers I'm confident in. In my mind, that means I know if I buy something from them it will more than likely be good and worth my purchase. Brian K. Vaughan, Wade, Rucka, Jason Aaron, are a few that come to mind.
Then there are those "hit or miss" types where I don't really follow them but once in a while I'll pick something up and it'll blow me away..but next time I'm left underwhelmed. Nick Spencer, Dan Slott, etc...
This blogger at Comics Alliance discusses his hopes and fears regarding DC's #Rebirth and states that he fears any more "white guy" heroes and essentially demands that DC make more top-tier female superheroes come out as gay. Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Wonder Woman, etc. Thoughts?
This blogger at Comics Alliance discusses his hopes and fears regarding DC's #Rebirth and states that he fears any more "white guy" heroes and essentially demands that DC make more top-tier female superheroes come out as gay. Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Wonder Woman, etc. Thoughts?
They are to some degree already at least implying that Harley is bisexual.
My questions would be if DC actually did it:
Why? Is it going to help the story or is it just being done for the sake of diversity? If it helps make a good story and there are long term plans - then great. If this is a gimmick to make one story in USA Today and in six months it never gets mentioned again, then why do it?
Is there an actual market for this? There is always someone wanting to make things more diverse but at times there is not enough of those someones to support a title. How much of the core audience will drop the book if this were to happen?
Comments
"It's real to ME" dammit!
I would argue that the preparation, baking, and particularly the eating of pie is the true purpose of life.
Or maybe I'm just hungry.
Would sad piccolo girl help?
It seems to me that DC doesn't do nearly as much as Marvel does in promoting their writers and artists. Other than Geoff Johns (who hardly writes at all) and Scott Snyder, are there as many big names you can think as Marvel seems to promote?
They might consider doing more to make their talent into stars, but perhaps it suits their business model not to.
The problem they have right now is that you can’t promote what you don't have. They just don't have a lot of names to get fans excited. They certainly made a big deal of getting Romita Jr., and I imagine they'll talk up Tom King now. But they don't have a lot to shout about right now.
And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.
And before anyone hits the "Quote" button, let's clarify what I'm talking about here: Obviously I have creators I like. I stand in line for them at conventions to get something signed, shake their hand, tell them I like what they do.
But it's more important to me that DC puts out a book I'm interested in buying, with characters I like and a plot that sounds interesting, than who's ultimately working on the title. Now if it *is* someone who's a big name in the funnybook world, that's great (although these days it carries its own baggage to have someone "famous" working on your book (ie. "How long is THIS going to last?")), but I buy my books from the big two because they have characters I like in them, or a story I think I'm going to enjoy.
Case in point - pre-order is in for a Scooby-Doo book because the Marvel Family is showing up in it. Don't care who's drawing it. Don't care who's writing it. Not a regular collector of the Scooby-Doo Team Up book. But the idea of the Mystery Machine gang teaming up with the Marvel Family sounds like a winner in my book.
I'd like to see the Big Guys put their energy back into telling me why I should be plopping my change down for a good story than why I should be supporting a particular creator. And again, it's nothing against the creators...they need to put a roof over their heads, and I get that...but they're not why I'm buying funnybooks.
I'm weird, though. :)
As @Torchsong indicates, there are some books that are all about the creator and there are others that are all about the character or the story.
But DC and Marvel have both given more recognition to the creators in recent years. Collections like the Marvel Visionaries series and DC’s writer- and artist-centric Batman and Superman collections would never have even been considered 20 years ago. And even those are character specific in each volume—DAREDEVIL by Frank Miller, BATMAN by Jim Aparo, etc. I used to practically beg Bob Wayne for an Alex Toth archive of his random DC work back when they held the DC Archive Editions panels every year in San Diego in the early to mid-’00s. But that wasn't a project they would even put on the table at that time.
But at the same time, DC and Marvel both realize that there are certain creators who have followings, and will mean an uptick in sales (at least in the short term). So they've always skated that line of promoting the talent but keeping the focus on the characters.
I've said this before on these forums, but the majority of comic book readers follow characters over creators. I saw this first-hand while working at a comic shop. And as I've also said, I think that may be slowly changing, in large part thanks to the vast number of conventions along with social media where fans can more easily interact with creators. But as far as superhero fans go, I don't think the creator-followers will ever outnumber the character-followers.
So I might check out Flash or GL, because I like the characters. But I'll also check out whatever book Tom King is doing. And maybe once the synopsis of the other books come out one or two will grab me the way Grayson did.
When I think of stand-out DC writers, I think Snyder, Simone, Jergens, and King. That's about it. Then again, I'm more of a Marvel-guy, so maybe I'm overlooking it, but it seems DC just doesn't put nearly as much emphasis on creators as Marvel does, and I think that effects their numbers in an intangible way.
I'd say the best example for me would be someone like Brian K. Vaughan. If he's writing it, I'm more apt to check it out sight unseen than if a complete unknown were going to work on it. This despite my one big gripe about BKV - his inability to stick the landing and give me a really satisfying conclusion. In the long run it doesn't matter because with him the ride is always worth more than reaching the destination, and I know I'm in for a great read with his books.
Greg Rucka falls into that category as well.
By that same token, I've discovered a lot of great writers and artists via Image (and to be fair a lot of other companies from "the back of the Previews catalog") just based on the premise and the idea that the story itself sounds like a real winner.
When it comes to creators there is only one writer and one artist that I buy whatever they do. I've said it before but Jonathan Hickman can write his grocery list on a napkin and I'd buy it. As for art I'm a sucker for Olivier Coipel's work and will buy any book he does.
Below those two I have a lot of artists and writers I'm confident in. In my mind, that means I know if I buy something from them it will more than likely be good and worth my purchase. Brian K. Vaughan, Wade, Rucka, Jason Aaron, are a few that come to mind.
Then there are those "hit or miss" types where I don't really follow them but once in a while I'll pick something up and it'll blow me away..but next time I'm left underwhelmed. Nick Spencer, Dan Slott, etc...
My questions would be if DC actually did it:
Why? Is it going to help the story or is it just being done for the sake of diversity?
If it helps make a good story and there are long term plans - then great. If this is a gimmick to make one story in USA Today and in six months it never gets mentioned again, then why do it?
Is there an actual market for this? There is always someone wanting to make things more diverse but at times there is not enough of those someones to support a title. How much of the core audience will drop the book if this were to happen?
...won?