Options
Creator Ownership and the Creation of Movie Properties
David_D
Posts: 3,881
With a tip of the hat to The Beat for linking to this, comics writer Nat Gertler made an interesting chart that tracks the history of what comics properties have become movie adaptations, when the initial material was created, and whether or not it is corporate-owned. It makes for an interesting visual, and shows, in a way, how much more narrow the window is between initial creation and adaptation in the case of non-corporate comics. And, I think, makes visual how much of a difference media sales have made in what Gertler calls the "Creator-Owned Era".
Check out the list in context here.
Check out the list in context here.
Comments
Show the year a movie was made, and whether or not the property was creator-owned.
I'm pretty sure the trend has shifted in favor of publisher/studio-owned properties in recent years.
And while there are more publisher-owned ones being made, I think what would still be the same is the fact that a creator-owned comic can be adapted to film far faster. That the window between creation and adaptation continues to be much more narrow then in the case of corporate properties, I think is the point Gertler was illustrating with this list.
And I think the possibility of those media sales (and this is just for movies, I would imagine in the next 20 years we might be able to see a similar chart for TV) have been a big factor in making creator-owned comics financially viable. (And, of course, that is not to say a creator can or should depend on such media sales, but the idea that the possibility is out there must factor into the cost/benefit analysis of the time getting invested).
False. By my count it's 38/27/2 in favor of publisher-owned books. Plus, the list ignores that while there may be one 30 Days of Night film out there, there are four Spider-Man, seven Batman, four X-men, etc., films. There are fewer creator-owned adaptations by a long shot.
As for the window being smaller, that's misleading as well. By setting the film release date at 1982, earlier versions, including serials, are dismissed. Those versions significantly close that window for a number of titles. Beyond that, restricting it to films only ignores television and animation. While that's apples-and-oranges in terms of scale of production, in terms of quickness of adaptation, they would again shrink the window for a number of books.
All this list really shows is that fewer writers and artists have created new characters for publisher-owned universes over the last thirty years. While that's an interesting point, it's hardly a revelation, and has nothing to do with properties being adapted to film.
But I think it is a remarkable fact that- even with less time to penetrate the culture and prove themselves as "proven content"- creator-owned comics properties have been a real force in movies. Not the biggest force, of course, but the amount of them that have got to screen in a small amount of time is significant and noteworthy.
That doesn't mean that publisher-owned have to be seen as unsuccessful. The point is that creator-owned have been largely successful, too. And, as you also said, it seems to be where the new or at least more recent concepts are coming from.
And my takeaway is that- while, of course, they can't depend on media sales, or aim for them when creating the work- creator-owners and would-be creator-owners see a list like this and are encouraged to stay in the game.
I honestly think "Deadpool" is the only major company creation since 1974 that has been able to maintain an on-going series. AND, the version of Deadpool that succeeded is VERY different in tone than the Deathstoke knockoff that Liefeld created.