Episode 268

[RSS]

Recently comic book writer Robert Kirkman made some controversial statements regarding corporate- versus self-publishing, and Des and Mike are here to chime in. [ 55:55 || 25.5 MB ]

The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/theshow/episodes/e2ts_268.mp3

[Dan]

My $0.02.

Some people who break into comics want nothing more than to write Aquaman. Other people want to write Aquaman so that they can create an opportunity to write their creator-owned stories. Both goals are equally valid. I would not personally be content to write someone else's property fo the rest of my life, but I don't fault the guy who would be.

Also... the idea that every creator who writes his creator owned project will bring every reader with him away from the Big Two is naive. There are very, very few creators who can even KIND OF do that. Alan Moore. Frank Miller. Todd McFarlane. Neil Gaiman. But on the whole, it's got some serious holes in it. Brian Bendis is not bigger than Avengers. Powers sells pretty well, but it's not getting Avengers figures. John Byrne was not bigger than Fantastic Four or X-Men. Next Men did respectably well for an indie, but it never came close to the sales figures of the company-owned books. I'm not saying that's how it should be - creators should be paramount - but it's how it is. If Bendis left Marvel, the number of readers who followed him to his new indie book would be dwarfed by the number who were just fine with sticking around to see how the new guy handled Avengers.

[Dread]

My $0.02.

Some people who break into comics want nothing more than to write Aquaman. Other people want to write Aquaman so that they can create an opportunity to write their creator-owned stories. Both goals are equally valid. I would not personally be content to write someone else's property fo the rest of my life, but I don't fault the guy who would be.

Also... the idea that every creator who writes his creator owned project will bring every reader with him away from the Big Two is naive. There are very, very few creators who can even KIND OF do that. Alan Moore. Frank Miller. Todd McFarlane. Neil Gaiman. But on the whole, it's got some serious holes in it. Brian Bendis is not bigger than Avengers. Powers sells pretty well, but it's not getting Avengers figures. John Byrne was not bigger than Fantastic Four or X-Men. Next Men did respectably well for an indie, but it never came close to the sales figures of the company-owned books. I'm not saying that's how it should be - creators should be paramount - but it's how it is. If Bendis left Marvel, the number of readers who followed him to his new indie book would be dwarfed by the number who were just fine with sticking around to see how the new guy handled Avengers.

Granted, the point made in the Wordballoon interview though is that you only have to sell 30,000 copies of a creator-owned to make more money than selling 150,000 at the big two. 30,000 is hard to do, but still. Those sales figures I'm sure still made some coin for their creators. Likely, more than their big two work.

[Stavros]

A few random notes-

Kirkman obviously has great affection for the classic comicbook characters, his son is called Peter Parker Kirkman. Plus his Marvel Team-up series is a complete love-letter to the Marvel Universe.

There are 5 books in Kirkman's creator owned superhero universe, Techjacket, Capes, Brit, Invincible and Wolfman. The current Brit book is written by Bruce Brown, so obviously Kirkman isn't against writers working on stuff owned by others, he really isn't prioritising creator owned material above all else for comic writers.

Funnily enough, wheras few writers can get crossover appeal moving from the big two to lower level comics Kirkman's appeal has worked the other way. When Walking Dead and Invincible were really hitting thier stride his Ant-man series was being cancelled due to low sales. People weren't following the creater even in the case of one of the most successful Image books currently being written. In fact Kirkman's books (Marvel Zombies cheap populism aside) have generally done poor business at Marvel. He's not a big name there and never has been. Marvel Zombies is probably responsible for some of Walking Dead's popularity, since it was such a big hit and people looked for other zombie comics, especially one by the same creator.

I don't want guys like Brubaker to leave Marvel. As cool as his other stuff is I couldn't stand to see a drop in quality for the big names like Captain America and Daredevil. I don't want anyone but the best writing those books. I could give a rats ass about some great new character that Johns, Morrison or Dini could create outside of DC, I want them to be the guiding hand behind the big guns of the DCU. I admit this is selfish but why try to build up something at the cost of already great characters?

The industry is riding a high off the back of some great films right now and these top flight books are an entry point for new fans, they need to be the best they can be. This is how you get people into comics. Someone might go out and buy the Hellboy books and then the BPRD books and then what? There isn't an automatic link onward there, they are by far the most significant works of any of the people involved. If someone goes to see The Dark Knight and then buys some highly recommended book like DKR or Year One then there are a lot of places to go. There are dozens of top notch books and dozens of great creators. If you read DKR it might change your opinion of Superman and make you interested in him, it might make you ask who the Green Arrow is. You might look up other work by Frank Miller, leading to Sin City, Wolverine, Daredevil, 300, etc. Its a much broader point for new fans to enter comics and it has the capability to generate far more revenue from them, across the board.

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

[Dread]

There are 5 books in Kirkman's creator owned superhero universe, Techjacket, Capes, Brit, Invincible and Wolfman. The current Brit book is written by Bruce Brown, so obviously Kirkman isn't against writers working on stuff owned by others, he really isn't prioritising creator owned material above all else for comic writers.

Great point. Never thought of it.

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

In all fairness, Batman sucked when GC was being published. It was the one Bat universe book that worked at the time.

Further, I love Morrison's DC work, I do. But, besides AS Superman, his creator-owned stuff is way better.

Did Batman Begins bring new readers to comics? I don't think so. People want their superheroes in movie form. It's a fucking shame but it's what's happening.

[Stavros]

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

In all fairness, Batman sucked when GC was being published. It was the one Bat universe book that worked at the time.

I picked up my first Gotham Central shortly after the Hush arc. I'd say thats a good point to go from.

Further, I love Morrison's DC work, I do. But, besides AS Superman, his creator-owned stuff is way better.

I know a lot of people love Morrison's extra DC stuff, but personally I cannot get into it. The Filth in particular was the most wretched piece of crap I've ever had the misfortune to buy.

Did Batman Begins bring new readers to comics? I don't think so. People want their superheroes in movie form. It's a fucking shame but it's what's happening.

More and more "recommend batman books" threads have popped up on various boards I am on over the years, usually coinciding with a film or hype for a film. I think they probably result in a bump in sales for those really significant books. Of course I can't verify that.

[Dread]

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

In all fairness, Batman sucked when GC was being published. It was the one Bat universe book that worked at the time.

I picked up my first Gotham Central shortly after the Hush arc. I'd say thats a good point to go from.

I stand by my point.

[Stavros]

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

In all fairness, Batman sucked when GC was being published. It was the one Bat universe book that worked at the time.

I picked up my first Gotham Central shortly after the Hush arc. I'd say thats a good point to go from.

I stand by my point.

OK, but for a normal person with say, taste, I'd say my example is valid. :happy:

[Dread]

For instance my love of Batman led me onto Gotham Central, which got me to Brubaker, then to Sleeper, then to Captain America, Iron Fist and finally Criminal (I was already reading DD). Its important that these people continue to work on a variety of things to maximise thier exposure and ensure that the industry as a whole maintains that quality. If Batman wasn't any good when I picked it up then who knows if I'd be reading Criminal now?

In all fairness, Batman sucked when GC was being published. It was the one Bat universe book that worked at the time.

I picked up my first Gotham Central shortly after the Hush arc. I'd say thats a good point to go from.

I stand by my point.

OK, but for a normal person with say, taste, I'd say my example is valid. :happy:

Ha! Touche monsieur Stavros!

I just think that the "greatest hits" idea of storytelling is a crutch that writers with no ideas latch on to. That's why i thought Hush and Enemy of the State were weak...but i actually happened to like Millar's Spider-Man story. Weirdly enough.

[Stavros]

I just think that the "greatest hits" idea of storytelling is a crutch that writers with no ideas latch on to. That's why i thought Hush and Enemy of the State were weak...but i actually happened to like Millar's Spider-Man story. Weirdly enough.

Thats the Marvel Knights one right? I've got that, its ok. I wish we'd see more of his Electro & Vulture, they were interesting for the first time in years during that story.

It does seem to be a theme with Millar. Wanted, Enemy of the State, Old Man Logan, The Authority, The Ultimates, Ultimate X-men, all his major works seem to be about genre-bending, taking what we know and accept and challenging it or operating outside it, often for shock value. In particular the first three would be examples of the greatest hits plotting style to which you refer.

I do love Hush regardless though. The characters introduction meant so much because he was depicted a playing with and manipulating so many other name Bat-villains, even if it wasn't his scheme overall. Its similar to Bane's introduction in the 90's, Batman had to run the gauntlet of his traditional foes to face his new nemesis. Its a great way to create a big name villian. Throw in the Jason Todd Mystery and some incredible art and I think you've got Jeph Loebs best work in recent history.

[Dread]

It does seem to be a theme with Millar. Wanted, Enemy of the State, Old Man Logan, The Authority, The Ultimates, Ultimate X-men, all his major works seem to be about genre-bending, taking what we know and accept and challenging it or operating outside it, often for shock value. In particular the first three would be examples of the greatest hits plotting style to which you refer.

Agreed. Although Wanted works because we don't know any of these characters. Old Man Logan isn't greatest hits so much as getting the whole picture. The only real character to appear is Hawkeye and he isn't really tied in with Wolvie enough to consider him a Greatest Hit character.

I do love Hush regardless though. The characters introduction meant so much because he was depicted a playing with and manipulating so many other name Bat-villains, even if it wasn't his scheme overall. Its similar to Bane's introduction in the 90's, Batman had to run the gauntlet of his traditional foes to face his new nemesis. Its a great way to create a big name villian. Throw in the Jason Todd Mystery and some incredible art and I think you've got Jeph Loebs best work in recent history.

Besides Fallen Son and a few early Batman/Superman arcs? Some of his only good work. Hush should have been six issues with a ton of fat cut out, it would have been much better.

[Stavros]

It does seem to be a theme with Millar. Wanted, Enemy of the State, Old Man Logan, The Authority, The Ultimates, Ultimate X-men, all his major works seem to be about genre-bending, taking what we know and accept and challenging it or operating outside it, often for shock value. In particular the first three would be examples of the greatest hits plotting style to which you refer.

Agreed. Although Wanted works because we don't know any of these characters. Old Man Logan isn't greatest hits so much as getting the whole picture. The only real character to appear is Hawkeye and he isn't really tied in with Wolvie enough to consider him a Greatest Hit character.

Wanted is quite blatant about its allegorical nature, every big DC villian or hero is represented from Luthor and Joker to Parasite, Bizarro or Mxy.

Old Man Logan isn't a blatant Wolverine greatest hits but it is heavily reliant on an undertanding of the wider Marvel U and builds our anticipation of future revelations. Right from the moment the Hulk family shows up in the Fantasticar you understand what this story is going to be, and with Parker family stuff, Ultron's and whatnot. More than any other future story done before this is about the Marvel universe as a whole.

[SuaveStar]

I just heard this show today, ironically I just finished a book called web comics 2.0 and it was all about breaking into and creating and supporting a web comic.

It's a little different than what the topic was but, I would love the oppurtunity to write Batman, I will freely admit that, I'm not a big other comic characters reader. Saying that if Marvel/DC said they wanted me to write for X comic, I would use wikipedia and it's lies to all the levels that I can, and then see how I can put my own style into the work, while still staying true to the character.

However if I was given the opportunity to publish my own creation, I would, if Marvel/DC asked me to come over to them, I wouldn't say F**k off I'm happy where I am, I would say where do I sign and I need some time to write outlines of this story for the next writer or artist, or whatever so that I know it would be in capable hands.

Robert Kirkman saying that more writers should create their own characters and publish them is like saying that I would not be content using Marvel/DC as a stepping stone or something I wouldn't love doing. Just because Kirkman is at that stage in his career is saying he is better off writing for himself, is fine, but he is just being a hypocrite by saying more need to follow his lead. He has made enough money, and will from working for the big company's, that if something were to go wrong, he'd be OK, but myself or others, who follow his lead might not be that lucky.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but that's my point.

Well that's it, I'm going to go have some cake....

[Missy]

One of Kirkman's points is that people should work for Marvel and DC, but then, at the height of their popularity, leave to work on creator-owned projects. According to him, fans will follow.

Simply put, I don't buy it. Yes, a lot of modern comic book readers follow creators, but most still follow characters. For them, it isn't a matter of who creates the book, just that it's good. So even if a top-selling writer were to leave The Big Two to work on his own project, only a small fraction of his readership would care to read his independent book.

Furthermore, Kirkman's talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he says "no one wants to write Pulp Fiction 2," but then he tells people to build a rep by working for the big guys. But by writing a single issue of Batman or Uncanny X-Men, you're writing a sequel to everything that's come before.

Another thing about his Pulp Fiction 2 comment: what's that say about Fred Van Lente who's excited to be working on Marvel Zombies 3?

Not everyone is going to have the success of Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, Mike Allred, Brian Michael Bendis, the Image founders and, yes, Robert Kirkman. Does that mean they shouldn't try? No. More creators should try their hand at it, but Kirkman's manifesto is seriously flawed. To tell people to jump blindly into it, leaving behind their Marvel and DC paychecks, borders on irresponsible.

[SuaveStar]

One of Kirkman's points is that people should work for Marvel and DC, but then, at the height of their popularity, leave to work on creator-owned projects. According to him, fans will follow.

Simply put, I don't buy it. Yes, a lot of modern comic book readers follow creators, but most still follow characters. For them, it isn't a matter of who creates the book, just that it's good. So even if a top-selling writer were to leave The Big Two to work on his own project, only a small fraction of his readership would care to read his independent book.

Furthermore, Kirkman's talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he says "no one wants to write Pulp Fiction 2," but then he tells people to build a rep by working for the big guys. But by writing a single issue of Batman or Uncanny X-Men, you're writing a sequel to everything that's come before.

Another thing about his Pulp Fiction 2 comment: what's that say about Fred Van Lente who's excited to be working on Marvel Zombies 3?

Not everyone is going to have the success of Frank Miller, Mike Mignola, Mike Allred, Brian Michael Bendis, the Image founders and, yes, Robert Kirkman. Does that mean they shouldn't try? No. More creators should try their hand at it, but Kirkman's manifesto is seriously flawed. To tell people to jump blindly into it, leaving behind their Marvel and DC paychecks, borders on irresponsible.

That's pretty much what you said during the show. Grant Morrison, who's writing Batman as everyone knows and is writing R.I.P, if I was to go to borders tomorrow and go to the graphic novel section and saw Grant Morrison's Flavour of truth! A TPB written by him, I would probably say "Isn't that the guy who writes Batman? Cool. I'm not getting it. Is that Batman Vs Two-face? I'll look at that."

Lets be honest if someone said to me write a sequel to RoboCop, a movie, or comic, I would scream like a little girl!

When someone comes up to me and says "Yeah, but you didn't create it" I would reply "Who gives a shit! I'm writing fucking RoboCop!"

Writers should create their own stuff, but only go independent when they are good and ready and if they want to not give the rights to Marvel/DC and see their work in a lot more places.

But hey, that's me.

[Missy]

Lets be honest if someone said to me write a sequel to RoboCop, a movie, or comic, I would scream like a little girl!

When someone comes up to me and says "Yeah, but you didn't create it" I would reply "Who gives a shit! I'm writing fucking RoboCop!"

Same here. Though I would like to work on characters I've created and own, I'd be perfectly happy writing episodes of Doctor Who and Star Trek or issues of Robin and Nightwing.

[SuaveStar]

Lets be honest if someone said to me write a sequel to RoboCop, a movie, or comic, I would scream like a little girl!

When someone comes up to me and says "Yeah, but you didn't create it" I would reply "Who gives a shit! I'm writing fucking RoboCop!"

Same here. Though I would like to work on characters I've created and own, I'd be perfectly happy writing episodes of Doctor Who and Star Trek or issues of Robin and Nightwing.

I completely agree, I would love to write Batman or Robocop as Robocop was my favourite movie as a kid.

But that doesn't mean when I felt the time was right, I wouldn't say I want to see if my ideas would sink or swim. Plus being able to add characters to the Universe that exists, which many writers have done. Look at Frank Miller with Elektra or Paul Dini and Bruce Timm with Harley Quinn, their are loads more I can't think of right now. Most people are just happy adding their creations to that Universe that already exists, and who could blame them.

Well that was a long post, just to reply I agree with you.