Wow. Some real tacky behavior on Liefeld's part. It is one thing to, as he said in an earlier statement, keep emails as evidence in case someone makes an accusation or spins or something. But posting screen shots of direct messages on Twitter? That is really crass. And seems a little desperate.
Wow. Some real tacky behavior on Liefeld's part. It is one thing to, as he said in an earlier statement, keep emails as evidence in case someone makes an accusation or spins or something. But posting screen shots of direct messages on Twitter? That is really crass. And seems a little desperate.
I think he accidentally made it public and made everyone notice. So then he just decided to make the whole thing public
Wow. Some real tacky behavior on Liefeld's part. It is one thing to, as he said in an earlier statement, keep emails as evidence in case someone makes an accusation or spins or something. But posting screen shots of direct messages on Twitter? That is really crass. And seems a little desperate.
I think he accidentally made it public and made everyone notice. So then he just decided to make the whole thing public
That's what it looks like. I do think making the private messages public crosses a line, though. And just makes Liefeld seem like he is trying too hard to make this a spectacle.
Yes, it may be a super villain move to make public their pillow fight, but I sort of agree with Liefeld. Snyder may improve upon Batman and make it sell higher, but unless the character is handled in the worst possible way, Batman will sell regardless of who the creative team is. There was no need for this to become public though or for Liefeld to push the issue.
Yes, it may be a super villain move to make public their pillow fight, but I sort of agree with Liefeld. Snyder may improve upon Batman and make it sell higher, but unless the character is handled in the worst possible way, Batman will sell regardless of who the creative team is. There was no need for this to become public though or for Liefeld to push the issue.
Generally, yes. But in the near term, there is even something to be said for how, in the New 52, Batman has been selling better than Detective, and much better than things like Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight, or even Morrison's Batman Inc. I agree that Batman is an incredibly strong brand, and that certainly Snyder and Capullo could sell more Batman than they could something new and unknown.
But when you compare the success of the current Batman volume to even the other Batman books, including the ones with "Batman" in the title, and I think you can see that Snyder and Capullo are adding value. The performance on that book is a part of its success, and I don't see what gain there would be in another creator making a statement to the contrary. Sure, there will always be readers on Batman, but there is such a thing as the needle moving this way or that based on performance.
Yes, it may be a super villain move to make public their pillow fight, but I sort of agree with Liefeld. Snyder may improve upon Batman and make it sell higher, but unless the character is handled in the worst possible way, Batman will sell regardless of who the creative team is. There was no need for this to become public though or for Liefeld to push the issue.
Generally, yes. But in the near term, there is even something to be said for how, in the New 52, Batman has been selling better than Detective, and much better than things like Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight, or even Morrison's Batman Inc. I agree that Batman is an incredibly strong brand, and that certainly Snyder and Capullo could sell more Batman than they could something new and unknown.
But when you compare the success of the current Batman volume to even the other Batman books, including the ones with "Batman" in the title, and I think you can see that Snyder and Capullo are adding value. The performance on that book is a part of its success, and I don't see what gain there would be in another creator making a statement to the contrary. Sure, there will always be readers on Batman, but there is such a thing as the needle moving this way or that based on performance.
I agree completely with one very slight exception. The regular Batman title has clearly been the strongest Bat title with the most consistent storyline. It is tough however to compare the first year of the regular "52" Batman title against the first year of the "52" Detective title. Tony Daniel seems to have a large anti-following that may kept the sales numbers down. And Dark Knight was just a a mess (IMO)
Yes, it may be a super villain move to make public their pillow fight, but I sort of agree with Liefeld. Snyder may improve upon Batman and make it sell higher, but unless the character is handled in the worst possible way, Batman will sell regardless of who the creative team is. There was no need for this to become public though or for Liefeld to push the issue.
Generally, yes. But in the near term, there is even something to be said for how, in the New 52, Batman has been selling better than Detective, and much better than things like Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight, or even Morrison's Batman Inc. I agree that Batman is an incredibly strong brand, and that certainly Snyder and Capullo could sell more Batman than they could something new and unknown.
But when you compare the success of the current Batman volume to even the other Batman books, including the ones with "Batman" in the title, and I think you can see that Snyder and Capullo are adding value. The performance on that book is a part of its success, and I don't see what gain there would be in another creator making a statement to the contrary. Sure, there will always be readers on Batman, but there is such a thing as the needle moving this way or that based on performance.
I agree completely with one very slight exception. The regular Batman title has clearly been the strongest Bat title with the most consistent storyline. It is tough however to compare the first year of the regular "52" Batman title against the first year of the "52" Detective title. Tony Daniel seems to have a large anti-following that may kept the sales numbers down. And Dark Knight was just a a mess (IMO)
Yes... but isn't that not an exception to the point that 'it is not the creative team on Batman, it is BATMAN', but rather proof to support that point? Batman's storyline has been the most consistent (as has its creative team), but isn't that a measure of what Snyder and Capullo are doing? They are the storytellers of that consistent story. One that ended up being strong enough (and popular enough) that it got exported into the rest of the line as a crossover.
I am not saying that Daniel's anti-following are in the right, but even the idea that he as a creator can detract from Detective Comics seems to me more proof that the creator makes a difference. That the brand is by far the MAIN thing, absolutely, but that the creators are positively and negatively effecting things, too.
The creator can clearly make a difference. Batman selling possibly 50,000 more a month than Detective shows that. But Liefeld is right in the regards (using Detective as an example) that a popular brand like Batman even with someone like Tony Daniel who many fans dislike still lands in the top 10 for sales.....so in the end, I guess that everybody is right about this :)
Honestly his take on 'Action Comics' has been less than stellar in my humble pie opinion. And his Batman work is now over shadowed by Scott Snyder. Here's a thought: Scott Snyder to write Action Comics!!!! Pretty please!
Wow, Liefeld had some kind of meltdown. I do have to agree with @CaptShazam, everyone is sort of right. Batman would sell regardless, but the Snyder run is clearly boosting those sales. I would argue that the reason it is constantly a best seller is because DC always puts top talent on it. At the end of the day it is sort of a chicken or the egg situation, but wow RL is coming of like a complete child in all of this. Also, his lambasting DC for editorial intervention is driving me crazy. One of the reasons TN52 has been so successful is because there is a strong editorial vision that makes the DCU feel cohesive, which necessitates editorial involvement to keep creators in line with that vision. When you write for the big 2, you are work-for-hire and have to stay consistent with the company's direction. Do I want editors writing my comics? No, but I'm sure there'd be a lot less of that if Liefeld's stories were more, idk, readable.
@CaptShazam and @Elkinscs I agree. And I think what you are saying is much more nuanced than Liefeld's "It's not you. It never has been. It's Batman."
I think I could agree with Liefeld if he was saying, "It's not JUST you. It's Batman and you." As, of course, as with anyone working with a huge and powerful brand (be it in comics or other media or even advertising) they have a very influential tool to use. But the performance of the individuals come down to how they use it. And I think Liefeld only invites negative comparisons to his own performance- including on big, powerful brands- to what Snyder and Capullo have succeeded in doing.
Put another way... there was a time when it 'It's not Liefeld. It's the Avengers.' And we all remember how THAT went.
And this is not to say Liefeld doesn't have a right to his opinion, or to believe this about how comics work. It is just telling how he goes about it. As with JMS' embarrassing (and, as it turns out, somewhat numerically questionable) claims about Spider-Man sales Twitter can often remind us who carries themselves with class (Roger Landridge's exit from the Big 2 comes to mind) and who talks to other adults about their industry like they are scrawling on a bathroom stall wall.
The creator can clearly make a difference. Batman selling possibly 50,000 more a month than Detective shows that. But Liefeld is right in the regards (using Detective as an example) that a popular brand like Batman even with someone like Tony Daniel who many fans dislike still lands in the top 10 for sales.....so in the end, I guess that everybody is right about this :)
Or it could just be that since the 40's Batman has outsold Detective, Superman has outsold Action and so on.
As for the "Batman always sells"...not true. Batman was nearly canceled when they brought in Julie Schwartz as editor in 1964-5, and sales were pretty low in the 1982 - 86 period when they started doing crossovers with the New Teen Titans to try to bring sales up. Detective was "canceled" twice (once in 1977 and once in 1983) and then was "uncanceled" the Monday after as DC didn't want to end the comic their name was based on.
Honestly his take on 'Action Comics' has been less than stellar in my humble pie opinion. And his Batman work is now over shadowed by Scott Snyder. Here's a thought: Scott Snyder to write Action Comics!!!! Pretty please!
For my part: Oh, God, no! Morrison's stories are exactly what I'm getting Action for, and the lack of them why I'm dropping the main Superman book. Likewise, I'm bored to tears with Snyder's Batman storyline; I thought the Court Of Owls story went on far too long and was a big reason why I finally dropped the title. Whereas I look forward to each issue of Batman, Inc.
Or it could just be that since the 40's Batman has outsold Detective, Superman has outsold Action and so on.
As for the "Batman always sells"...not true. Batman was nearly canceled when they brought in Julie Schwartz as editor in 1964-5, and sales were pretty low in the 1982 - 86 period when they started doing crossovers with the New Teen Titans to try to bring sales up. Detective was "canceled" twice (once in 1977 and once in 1983) and then was "uncanceled" the Monday after as DC didn't want to end the comic their name was based on.
I think a lot of that is reflective of the fact that books named after solo characters sell better than more ambiguously named books, but point well taken. I will say that in the modern, comic buying audience (a little bit older, smarter, and more demanding of their comic stories as opposed to, say, silver age readers) Batman can be reasonably expected to sell well consistently.
Or it could just be that since the 40's Batman has outsold Detective, Superman has outsold Action and so on.
As for the "Batman always sells"...not true. Batman was nearly canceled when they brought in Julie Schwartz as editor in 1964-5, and sales were pretty low in the 1982 - 86 period when they started doing crossovers with the New Teen Titans to try to bring sales up. Detective was "canceled" twice (once in 1977 and once in 1983) and then was "uncanceled" the Monday after as DC didn't want to end the comic their name was based on.
I think a lot of that is reflective of the fact that books named after solo characters sell better than more ambiguously named books, but point well taken. I will say that in the modern, comic buying audience (a little bit older, smarter, and more demanding of their comic stories as opposed to, say, silver age readers) Batman can be reasonably expected to sell well consistently.
Erm... I'm going to have to ask you to defend that argument a little bit. From my perspective, the modern comic book reader isn't really all that much different from the silver age reader, save that, thanks to the Internet, they're a little bit more informed. Otherwise, they all seem to be pretty much at the same level to me: the same age (more or less), about the same level of intelligence (again, more or less) and just as demanding.
Erm... I'm going to have to ask you to defend that argument a little bit. From my perspective, the modern comic book reader isn't really all that much different from the silver age reader, save that, thanks to the Internet, they're a little bit more informed. Otherwise, they all seem to be pretty much at the same level to me: the same age (more or less), about the same level of intelligence (again, more or less) and just as demanding.
The report that this comes from costs a ridiculous amount of money so I don't have any other demographic information, but the preview of the report makes the overall point that companies are targeting the wrong age groups. If 25% of readers are over 65, we can reasonably assume that the rest of the demos are similarly skewed. This is in contrast to the silver age (which was picked arbitrarily, mind you), in which I believe the average reader was somewhere around 14 (I don't have anything to back that up other than I heard it somewhere, so I could definitely be wrong). However, I think this says to me that we're taking the medium more seriously and demanding more from a literary perspective. In my mind, the psychology, literary depth, and tone that is possible to achieve in Batman is more suited for this type of audience than the average superhero, which is why I feel he is the most likely character to consistently sell in the modern-day comic market.
Erm... I'm going to have to ask you to defend that argument a little bit. From my perspective, the modern comic book reader isn't really all that much different from the silver age reader, save that, thanks to the Internet, they're a little bit more informed. Otherwise, they all seem to be pretty much at the same level to me: the same age (more or less), about the same level of intelligence (again, more or less) and just as demanding.
The report that this comes from costs a ridiculous amount of money so I don't have any other demographic information, but the preview of the report makes the overall point that companies are targeting the wrong age groups. If 25% of readers are over 65, we can reasonably assume that the rest of the demos are similarly skewed. This is in contrast to the silver age (which was picked arbitrarily, mind you), in which I believe the average reader was somewhere around 14 (I don't have anything to back that up other than I heard it somewhere, so I could definitely be wrong). However, I think this says to me that we're taking the medium more seriously and demanding more from a literary perspective. In my mind, the psychology, literary depth, and tone that is possible to achieve in Batman is more suited for this type of audience than the average superhero, which is why I feel he is the most likely character to consistently sell in the modern-day comic market.
Accepting that the statistic is true, I think that would skew your conclusions just a mite. Whatever those fans were during the Silver Age, they are apparently still around, or you wouldn't be having a percentile of 25% over age 65. And while their tastes may have matured over that time, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're going to be looking for a deeper literary tone to comics or characters like Batman. They may, but not necessarily. Or that they would necessarily prefer Batman to any other superhero. (Speaking as someone who is almost in that age group, I can assure you it's not necessarily so.) The facts you have are just a bit thin to be making that kind of conclusion; you need a bit more data in order do so.
@Chuck_Melville I think it's a little unrealistic to suggest that readers have the same expectations of their comics in their 60's as they did when they were kids. No, I don't have statistics to back that up, but logic would dictate that as one ages, one needs deeper and more sophisticated storytelling to be intellectually stimulated. As far as to whether or not Batman, as a character, is intellectually stimulating to that age group, I think it is undeniable that he is one of the more sophisticated and literary of the mainstream superheros. As far as to whether they are looking for more literary comics, I think the market is evidence that they are. Just look at the state of comics themselves as compared to what it was in the 60's. While not everything is gold, I think we can agree that storytelling and dialogue is vastly superior to the silver age. Stan Lee was a visionary, but he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag compared to modern writers.
The art is at least technically better, the story telling is better, the coloring is vastly better, and the paper quality is top notch. What is not better (at least with the Big 2) is the fun factor (IMO). While comics can not go back to the Silver Age wackiness, the doom and gloom of many current titles every story arch is disappointing. While some depth is needed, at the end of the day we are talking about comic books and costumed super heroes. I have nothing against comics being more literally simulating but from time to time, lets just have fun.
@CaptShazam, I think there are definitely still some titles out there you can do that with. The Umbrella Academy being a great example, Frankenstein, Agent of SHADE is a lot of wackiness, Deadpool is generally pretty fun (if a little bloody). I see what you're saying, but they really just don't make comics for kids anymore.
While not everything is gold, I think we can agree that storytelling and dialogue is vastly superior to the silver age. Stan Lee was a visionary, but he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag compared to modern writers.
I love Stan, really I do, but the vast majority of his stuff is really meant to be read, enjoyed and then...well...tossed. I just got done with Captain America Essential 4, and while it's FUN, the plots are just a mess. The last multi-part story has the Red Skull use the Cosmic Cube to switch bodies with Captain America...and then the Red Skull uses Cap's body to rent a luxury hotel room, insult a bunch of people and...well...then...nothing. Oh, and the story ends when MODOK creates his own Cosmic Cube which negates what the Red Skull did, and Cap has no idea how the Skull was defeated, where he is, he just wanders off into the night, moping about Sharon Carter.
The "highlight" was when a pair of stage hypnotists take over SHIELD.
But, damn that Gene Colon art was amazing.
When Stan was on his game, he did some great work. The Fantastic Four with Kirby, Spider-Man with Ditko, the Silver Surfer with Buscema. But, really, most of the time he put out fun, disposable super-hero soap opera stories that were more entertaining than the other stuff out there. I love it for what it is, but I sure wouldn't give it to someone who wasn't a comic book fan.
The art is at least technically better, the story telling is better, the coloring is vastly better, and the paper quality is top notch. What is not better (at least with the Big 2) is the fun factor (IMO). While comics can not go back to the Silver Age wackiness, the doom and gloom of many current titles every story arch is disappointing. While some depth is needed, at the end of the day we are talking about comic books and costumed super heroes. I have nothing against comics being more literally simulating but from time to time, lets just have fun.
Oh, there is still fun stuff out there. Hawkeye was a LOT of fun, as is the Dan Slott Spider-Man, Batman Inc (which has BATCOW!!! and references a ton of Silver Age Batman stories), Knights of the Dinner Table, Chew, Avenging Spider-Man, Axe Cop, The Goon, Popeye (which reads as if EC Segar has come back to life to create all new stories), and more.
@Chuck_Melville I think it's a little unrealistic to suggest that readers have the same expectations of their comics in their 60's as they did when they were kids. No, I don't have statistics to back that up, but logic would dictate that as one ages, one needs deeper and more sophisticated storytelling to be intellectually stimulated. As far as to whether or not Batman, as a character, is intellectually stimulating to that age group, I think it is undeniable that he is one of the more sophisticated and literary of the mainstream superheros. As far as to whether they are looking for more literary comics, I think the market is evidence that they are. Just look at the state of comics themselves as compared to what it was in the 60's. While not everything is gold, I think we can agree that storytelling and dialogue is vastly superior to the silver age. Stan Lee was a visionary, but he couldn't write his way out of a paper bag compared to modern writers.
Actually, speaking for myself, I have exactly the same expectations of my comics as I did when I was a kid: I want them to be fun to read. I'm not really looking for War And Peace or Ethan Frome everytime I open a comic magazine. I'm not looking to be intellectually stimulated when I read a comic (and I'm really not sure why you would think that was a logical conclusion of getting older); I've got Moby Dick for that. Comic book readers just want to have fun.
Over the years, I've been subject to just about every kind of variant Batman that exists: detective Batman, superhero Batman, manhunter Batman, campy Batman, crazy Batman, avenger Batman, even sci-fi Batman. I've been able to enjoy pretty much most of them. The one version I don't really like is the current one: creepy Batman with the dark, psychologically twisted stories. The Joker cutting off his own face? I don't need that. Seriously, I get a lot more enjoyment out of the old John Broome stories than I get out of the current Scott Snyder stories. I get more enjoyment out of the stories by Chuck Dixon, Bob Haney, Denny O'Neil, etc. Heck, I'd even take a Stan Lee Batman over that.
Comics may not be just for kids anymore, but they should be aiming for the kid inside of us.
The Bleeding Cool article then lists some books/creators that have had issues.
"It’s the reason Gail Simone walked off Firestorm, it’s the reason Paul Cornell walked off Stormwatch, it’s the reason John Rozum walked off Static Shock."
Who are/were the editors for those books?
I would just remind people about Marvel in the mid 90's...look at what creators back then were saying about how books were done with editors dictating to writers what they would write, dialogue being changed to tell a different story than what was plotted (or drawn). Then think about who was in charge of Marvel back then.
I think we're REALLY going to see more and more creators moving away from DC (and Marvel to a lesser extent) and setting up over at Image for self-publishing.
Which is a very good thing.
Isn't this a bad thing tho as so many readers dont read indie books?
It seems even now your average comic fan won't read anything that isn't from the big 4 or a licensed property. Which is sad cause there is so many great books out there that aren't from the big 4.
big 4? we have a big 4 now? is that Image and Dark Horse? or Dynamite and Boom!? ( that was mostly an explosion joke)
Comments
But when you compare the success of the current Batman volume to even the other Batman books, including the ones with "Batman" in the title, and I think you can see that Snyder and Capullo are adding value. The performance on that book is a part of its success, and I don't see what gain there would be in another creator making a statement to the contrary. Sure, there will always be readers on Batman, but there is such a thing as the needle moving this way or that based on performance.
I am not saying that Daniel's anti-following are in the right, but even the idea that he as a creator can detract from Detective Comics seems to me more proof that the creator makes a difference. That the brand is by far the MAIN thing, absolutely, but that the creators are positively and negatively effecting things, too.
I think I could agree with Liefeld if he was saying, "It's not JUST you. It's Batman and you." As, of course, as with anyone working with a huge and powerful brand (be it in comics or other media or even advertising) they have a very influential tool to use. But the performance of the individuals come down to how they use it. And I think Liefeld only invites negative comparisons to his own performance- including on big, powerful brands- to what Snyder and Capullo have succeeded in doing.
Put another way... there was a time when it 'It's not Liefeld. It's the Avengers.' And we all remember how THAT went.
And this is not to say Liefeld doesn't have a right to his opinion, or to believe this about how comics work. It is just telling how he goes about it. As with JMS' embarrassing (and, as it turns out, somewhat numerically questionable) claims about Spider-Man sales Twitter can often remind us who carries themselves with class (Roger Landridge's exit from the Big 2 comes to mind) and who talks to other adults about their industry like they are scrawling on a bathroom stall wall.
As for the "Batman always sells"...not true. Batman was nearly canceled when they brought in Julie Schwartz as editor in 1964-5, and sales were pretty low in the 1982 - 86 period when they started doing crossovers with the New Teen Titans to try to bring sales up. Detective was "canceled" twice (once in 1977 and once in 1983) and then was "uncanceled" the Monday after as DC didn't want to end the comic their name was based on.
M
The report that this comes from costs a ridiculous amount of money so I don't have any other demographic information, but the preview of the report makes the overall point that companies are targeting the wrong age groups. If 25% of readers are over 65, we can reasonably assume that the rest of the demos are similarly skewed. This is in contrast to the silver age (which was picked arbitrarily, mind you), in which I believe the average reader was somewhere around 14 (I don't have anything to back that up other than I heard it somewhere, so I could definitely be wrong). However, I think this says to me that we're taking the medium more seriously and demanding more from a literary perspective. In my mind, the psychology, literary depth, and tone that is possible to achieve in Batman is more suited for this type of audience than the average superhero, which is why I feel he is the most likely character to consistently sell in the modern-day comic market.
The "highlight" was when a pair of stage hypnotists take over SHIELD.
But, damn that Gene Colon art was amazing.
When Stan was on his game, he did some great work. The Fantastic Four with Kirby, Spider-Man with Ditko, the Silver Surfer with Buscema. But, really, most of the time he put out fun, disposable super-hero soap opera stories that were more entertaining than the other stuff out there. I love it for what it is, but I sure wouldn't give it to someone who wasn't a comic book fan.
It's out there. You just have to look for it!
Over the years, I've been subject to just about every kind of variant Batman that exists: detective Batman, superhero Batman, manhunter Batman, campy Batman, crazy Batman, avenger Batman, even sci-fi Batman. I've been able to enjoy pretty much most of them. The one version I don't really like is the current one: creepy Batman with the dark, psychologically twisted stories. The Joker cutting off his own face? I don't need that. Seriously, I get a lot more enjoyment out of the old John Broome stories than I get out of the current Scott Snyder stories. I get more enjoyment out of the stories by Chuck Dixon, Bob Haney, Denny O'Neil, etc. Heck, I'd even take a Stan Lee Batman over that.
Comics may not be just for kids anymore, but they should be aiming for the kid inside of us.