No one talking about the Kirkman video? [Archive]

suttercain

08-13-2008, 07:58 PM

Or is it just in another thread I missed?

Anyway, I am actually very excited to see him open up as much as he did. I'm no professional on how the industry works but I do know I read more independents than I do Marvel or DC. You can definitely tell the difference. For example, The Boys. From what what I read DC got uptight about Ennis' writing and he went over to Dynamite instead and continues to write this excellent work.

I also like independents because they are usually open to solicitations and proposals. Both DC and Marvel lock out new talent and only want them after they are already somewhat successful.

Kirkman is a huge talent and 'The Walking Dead' is one of the best, if not the best, ongoing series out right now.

My own shamless plug: I am putting together a 4 issue mini-series, paying the artist out of pocket. Practicing coloring at least 4 hours a day. Paying for the printing of 50 copies of issue #1 and putting together a proposal in which I'll send to all indies that accept them. This will cost me around $2000 and about countless hours to do. This video truly inspires someone like myself who is busting his ass trying to make his dreams become a reality. For that I thank Kirkman.

Love live the Battle Pope!

Jimmykitty

08-13-2008, 08:34 PM

I like what he said, I support him.
And yes, I thought it was odd that on CBR there was no thread for their CBR exclusive video. The forums over on Image Comics are talking, though.

Mojorisin

08-13-2008, 10:05 PM

Darth Dizzt

08-13-2008, 10:30 PM

I know where he is coming from and I understand completely.

It's a sad day when the best superhero stories out there are on the big screen, the TV, and in novel form (i.e. Rob Roger's "Devil's Cape"). But truth be told - that is how things are shaking out...

Libaax

08-13-2008, 11:11 PM

I think the slew of recent comic book movies has added considerably to the current audience. I was 10 when the first X-Men movie came out, and it's what got me into comics. Here I am at 18 still reading, and I will be for life. Sure, there were some continuity issues at first, but comics aren't that hard to follow.

It seems like Kirkman cares more about taking a stab at DC and Marvel than he actually does about "Saving the industry." I think Marvel and DC are doing a great job of trying to appeal to a new audience. I mean...comics are on freaking myspace now.

What Kirkman is talking about is already happening...what more does he want?

I think it's great Kirkman is giving hope to other emerging creators, and that part of his rant is fantastic...but his industry salvation talk just seemed somewhat unneccessary.

Writing almost only superheroes and locking up the best new talents to write another Wolverine isnt appealing to new audience.

I wish more was like Kirkman, writing great comics like TWK,Invincible without needing to write for DC,Marvel.

Tanjint

08-13-2008, 11:43 PM

I think the slew of recent comic book movies has added considerably to the current audience. I was 10 when the first X-Men movie came out, and it's what got me into comics. Here I am at 18 still reading, and I will be for life. Sure, there were some continuity issues at first, but comics aren't that hard to follow.

It seems like Kirkman cares more about taking a stab at DC and Marvel than he actually does about "Saving the industry." I think Marvel and DC are doing a great job of trying to appeal to a new audience. I mean...comics are on freaking myspace now.

What Kirkman is talking about is already happening...what more does he want?

I think it's great Kirkman is giving hope to other emerging creators, and that part of his rant is fantastic...but his industry salvation talk just seemed somewhat unneccessary.

That's kind of his point though, the superhero movie fad will only be around for so long and if it ends and superheroes is still all the comics industry can show for it....we're in trouble. We need to use this spotlight to push comics into the mainstream as a medium not just the superhero as a concept.

and I'm definitely moved by this editorial. I'm writing Kirkman a letter as we speak.

I'm also slowly writing a comic about a bunch of stoners in southern california...

-T

Maestro

08-14-2008, 12:40 AM

I like what he said, I support him.
And yes, I thought it was odd that on CBR there was no thread for their CBR exclusive video. The forums over on Image Comics are talking, though.

There is a great discussion on the Bendis board too about he's totally WRONG!

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 01:34 AM

saw some interesting comments at ifanboy but I don't feel like registering there so I'll talk about them here:

someone there said that plenty of big creators do creator-owned work but it gets ignored and maybe people just want them for their superhero work.

I think such comments indicate someone who missed Kirkman's key point.

Big creators need to stop giving readers the choice: if Bendis is writing spider-man and powers...people are going to buy spider-man. But if Bendis is only writing Powers...then Bendis fans will be forced to buy powers..

will some readers be lost? sure

is it a risk? sure

but it just may pay off eventually.

imagine if fraction said f#ck x-men, if you like me read casanova

bendis said screw 616 and ultimate, follow me to powers

busiek said forget the big three, follow me to astro city

Miller said screw all star batman, buy sin city

Morrison said screw DCU/Batman, read seaguy

Kirkman DID say screw marvel zombies and marvel heroes, buy my books!

it would be a risk. it would lose some money initially...specially for the big two...but it would be great and probably good change for the industry. it would force fans to branch out.

and then you can have people like Jeff Parker and Geoff Johns who seemingly love to write superhero material and not so much other stuff....doing super-heroes how they should be done.

Not that Bendis and Morrison can't do that...but Parker and Johns seem to be born to do just that while one can make the argument Morrison and Bendis long for more.

I have to admit, I detected a certain level of condescension from Fraction at SDCC's visionaries panel where he talks about how he just does x-men so he has enough money to do Casanova. I couldn't help but think "I'd kind of like to just have someone who REALLY wants to be writing x-men write x-men."

-T

Union Jack

08-14-2008, 03:45 AM

Now i know as well as anyone else that Robert Kirkman is some kind of comic-writing god taken human form, and i pretty much agree with him 100%, but...

Will this video change anything? Really?

Claret & Blue

08-14-2008, 06:30 AM

Kirkman has set a good example , and he is right , if Ed Brubaker suddlenly said Its Criminal or nothing , I would have to make a choice , .

Marvel & DC are like drugs sometimes, and if we dont get an incentive to wean ourselves off , the market will only ever be the big 2 , .

If more of us backed or were forced to make a choice to back , creator owned , the industry would blossom. Marvel and DC like Kirkman says will survive , they always will.

6655321

08-14-2008, 07:24 AM

One point I agree wholeheartedly with Kirkman on is the profitability potential of independent business. While it’s not a surefire buck you can certainly make a few. I’m punk rock, while this may seem like an irrelevant point it’s not really. Through my experiences in the underground music scene I know that there are a number of individuals and bands that most folks never heard of who’ve, maybe not become millionaires but certainly pulled in enough profit to tour the world and make a living off of playing music for years, in some cases decades. Heck, when I was younger and played in bands (I the mid- 90’s) my bands would often get together with a couple other bands I knew (with most of us so new at what we were doing we hardly knew how to play our instruments let alone have anything recorded) spend anywhere from $75 - $100 to rent a venue for the night and $25 or less on fliers for advertising, at five bands for five bucks we would regularly pull in over five hundred bucks profit (after taking out cost), with each band taking home their equal share. While that may not seem like a whole lot of cash it’s also important to note that we almost never had real headliners, we were all just kids in bands. The point here is, if there’s an audience you’ll make more cash. The problem with making a buck in big business is that there’s often so many more mouths to feed and pockets to fill and the biggest chunk of money often go to the fat cats in the board rooms. That isn’t to say the independent artist model isn’t without its own inherent flaws and printing / distributing a comic book is a great deal more complicated than setting up a punk rock show but the profitability is certainly there for the creators.

But that’s not to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Robert’s thinking. First of all, I’m of the camp that I think most kids have moved away from comic books largely because of other entertainment options. While I think it’s vital that comics reach new audiences I think that aiming for the younger crowd isn’t going to work as well as “smartening up” comics even more and going for the eccentric intellectual crowd. While I would love to see comics distributed in more places, in my early comic buying years I’d often pick up comics in gas stations and what not but I’d also often miss several issues on a regular basis due to the fact that these places often got less of any given issue and the titles themselves were often a sporadic lot.

Furthermore, as a fan there’re reasons I buy mostly DC titles and not indie books, though I do pick up a few indie books. Independent books are often published irregularly at best and while I don’t often go off the handle over books a week or two late, when the gap between issues is often months apart (and yes, the “big boys” are sometimes guilty of this as well), I have a pretty long attention span but everyone’s got limits. Also, as crazy as it may sound to some, I like continuity and I like the idea of a shared universe. I really dig the idea that something happening in book A can have some effect on book B even if I don’t read both books or that something that happened X number of years ago can come up again..

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. He may be on to something but as far as I’m concerned, the idea can use some work.

Mike Bullock

08-14-2008, 10:27 AM

When every kid in the US had a comic collection, superheroes were only a small part of the medium. Once superheros began to dominate, the days were numbered.

How many people would still turn on the TV every day if the only thing on was variations of Judge Judy?

How many ad dollars would be spent on TV commercials if the only thing on TV was auto racing?

How many people would even bother to buy a television if all they could watch were shows about home remodeling?

How often would you go to the movie theaters if the only choice you had in flicks was "Romantic Comedy"?

I prefer superhero stuff in my comics (my spinner rack shows it) and have a list of characters I'd love to write, but the industry needs more HeroBear, Walking Dead, Negation, POPGUN, NYC Mech, Fear Agent, 30 Days of Night etc long before it needs another Amazing-Ultimate-Tales-of-the-Super-Spider-Bat book if anything other than attrition is the goal.

Keep preaching, Robert, hopefully enough people will listen that good things will come of it.

:)

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Now i know as well as anyone else that Robert Kirkman is some kind of comic-writing god taken human form, and i pretty much agree with him 100%, but...

Will this video change anything? Really?

It'll get a discussion going. That's all he wants.

-T

SpawnOfJon

08-14-2008, 11:00 AM

Can someone point me to this video? I would like to watch it.

Thanks. Bye.

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 11:38 AM

should be on the front page of comicbookresources.com

I'd like to comment some more on the editorial itself.

Kirkman mentions that Marvel Adventures talks down to readers to a certain extent.

I don't think this is true but something else he said is true: kids can tell that the Adventures' lines are side-books.

Kick-ass writers like Peter David and Jeff Parker write MA books BUT Marvel does marginalize these books, give them digest instead of trades, assign less prominent/mainstream/popular artists to these books.

If Marvel turned around and made Jeff Parker a spider-man book with Mike McKone or hell McNiven on pencils....I think it would sell. His work is intelligent, hilarious, culturally aware, and there is a sense of continuity but not to a cumbersome extent. and most importantly it's accessible for old and new fans.

Marvel shouldn't be afraid to invest a little bit more into the adventures line and make them the main books. it would continue to sell, it would get new readers thus helping the industry.

frankly Jeff Parker is better than any of the BND writers at creating the kind of feel they're going for. I notice Kirkman's comments go after Marvel a bit more than DC...I think I see why. Marvel seeks to take Jason Aaron from Vertigo/scalped to Marvel wolverine. They sought out Bendis from image/powers to marvel/spider-man. sought out brubaker from criminal to daredevil. Fraction from casanova to x-men. whereas DC seems to hunt for people whose desire is to write their characters.

Fraction made comments basically saying he does x-men and marvel so he has the money to do casanova....whereas Geoff Johns probably really wants to write flash and green lantern.

Marvel should have a Geoff Johns type like Jeff Parker running their universe.

-T

KSBrennan

08-14-2008, 12:07 PM

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 12:07 PM

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 01:22 PM

I agree with a lot of what he said, however the stability of an exclusive contract is far too attractive for many people to pass up.

Would you prefer someone to pay for your benefits package? Health and life insurance can get mighty expensive.

Would you prefer a guaranteed pay check on top of your residual income based on sales?

I would love to see more creator owned properties coming from the top writers and artists but I don't see why they can't continue to do both? Brubaker is able to write the hell out of Captain America and Daredevil and still pump out amazing work on Criminal. Sure it's still published by Marvel (Icon) but it's his to do with as he pleases and he doesn't have to deal with the production side of things. People forget that dealing with printers, distribution, marketing, etc. isn't always as fun as creating comics.

Kirkman is creating some of my favourite books right now. He's also one of the success stories of Image. They know the business side of things that allow him to create great comics. If he was doing all the work himself I'm not sure his comics would have been as successful. The creative stuff tends to suffer when
the creators are forced to deal with the business side of things too.

they can do both well sure...but one of Kirkman's points in his video editorial and in his just posted word balloon interview is that if someone like Brubaker is doing criminal and x-men(for example)...what is one more likely to buy? X-Men.

But if he does a kick ass x-men ARC, gets you to love him, then LEAVES and says "If you want my work, you'll read criminal" this forces readers to make a choice. They're likely to continue to read x-men because they like the characters already and they're far more likely to read criminal because they like Brubaker.

People will go with the familiar property unless you take away the choice which is exactly what Kirkman suggests they do.

-T

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 01:33 PM

While I think that Kirkman means well, particularly in regards to creator-owned material, I don't think he recognizes the impact of his recent change of status, from being a field-hand to being a boss-man at one of the major comics publishers.

What he basically says in this video is that he wants to go on a cruise with the heads of the bigger comics publishers to plan the market between them... and what he wants the result of that plan to be is that the bigger publishers aren't offering the bigger creators those lucrative contracts any more, and those creators come create work for his company. That's right, he wants the bossmen to come together and end up with fewer good options for creators. Really, that should not exactly warm the cockles of any freelancer's heart.

possibly, but a 'mass exodus' of big writers from marvel/dc would force DC/Marvel to give such freelancers a chance as opposed to cherry picking vertigo and image(already established !!) writers which is EXACTLY what they have been doing for the last decade. Marvel is only giving chances to pre-established writers and artists now. with Kirkman's idea, Marvel would have to give new blood a shot...which over-all would be good I think..

Kirkman would like to see, I think, things revert to a late 80's early 90's type thing where creators use Marvel/DC to get recognition so they can start their own projects succesfully instead of what has happened lately: the other way around where creators that establish themselves at vertigo and image 'graduate' to batman and spider-man.

Now, I know what you may be thinking...the cherry picking that Marvel has been doing is exactly what quesada used to turn the company around...but no one's saying that has to stop. Frankly the TRULY hot creators that quesada gets (kevin smith, jon favreau, etc.) are only around temporarily and not for the long haul so give 'em a limited marvel knights series that'll sell like hell and give the main monthlies to people whose dreams are to do those books!

I find myself thinking of Fraction's "I use x-men to finance casanova" comment alot lately...and as cool as fraction is...wouldn't you rather have a dude like jeff parker running the marvel universe the way a guy like geoff johns is running DC? someone whose dream is to write those characters and is good, funny, and respectful at it? I sure would.

-T

RaulTheCat

08-14-2008, 01:54 PM

I agree with a lot of what he said, however the stability of an exclusive contract is far too attractive for many people to pass up.

Would you prefer someone to pay for your benefits package? Health and life insurance can get mighty expensive.

Would you prefer a guaranteed pay check on top of your residual income based on sales?

I would love to see more creator owned properties coming from the top writers and artists but I don't see why they can't continue to do both? Brubaker is able to write the hell out of Captain America and Daredevil and still pump out amazing work on Criminal. Sure it's still published by Marvel (Icon) but it's his to do with as he pleases and he doesn't have to deal with the production side of things. People forget that dealing with printers, distribution, marketing, etc. isn't always as fun as creating comics.

Kirkman is creating some of my favourite books right now. He's also one of the success stories of Image. They know the business side of things that allow him to create great comics. If he was doing all the work himself I'm not sure his comics would have been as successful. The creative stuff tends to suffer when
the creators are forced to deal with the business side of things too.

Dark Horse, Image, Avatar, Dynamite press..all of these houses allow creators to own their stories and creations. He made an excellent point with Mignola; if Mignola had decided to create Hellboy for Marvel or DC, the movies and merchandising would have been a very bitter pill for him to swallow.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 02:02 PM

Marvel is only giving chances to pre-established writers and artists now. with Kirkman's idea, Marvel would have to give new blood a shot...which over-all would be good I think.No, because Kirkman's plan is not about turning all Image creators into superstars, but turning the superstars into Image creators. In fact, he's advocating a plan very much like his own path -- folks get established on Image (and similar or smaller publisher) books, then head over to Marvel and DC, and then head back to Image. Frankly the TRULY hot creators that quesada gets (kevin smith, jon favreau, etc.) are only around temporarily and not for the long haul so give 'em a limited marvel knights series that'll sell like hell and give the main monthlies to people whose dreams are to do those books!I'm more concerned that the books are done well than that they're done by people whose dream it was to do those books.
I find myself thinking of Fraction's "I use x-men to finance casanova" comment alot lately...and as cool as fraction is...wouldn't you rather have a dude like jeff parker running the marvel universe the way a guy like geoff johns is running DC?As a reader? No. Really, I'd rather there wasn't any one creative mind "running" the universe. I don't want to "read" a universe, don't want to treat it all as a 220 page weekly comic. I want to read individual series that have their own texture, and that I can follow, rather than something that is crossover chapter 26 of this year's The Universe Will Never Be The Same - Now It Will Be Even More Depressing crossover. Which is why you're apt to find me reading more isolated books like the Whedon Astonishing X-Men, All-Star Batman, and Tiny Titans than I am to be reading any installment of House Of Crisis.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 02:11 PM

if Mignola had decided to create Hellboy for Marvel or DC, the movies and merchandising would have been a very bitter pill for him to swallow.That depends on what deal he swung for it. Had he managed to get the same deal that, say, Neil had for Stardust, or Max Allan Collins had for The Road To Perdition (both works originally published by DC since the launch of Hellboy), he might've been as fine as those folks.

Tanjint

08-14-2008, 02:12 PM

when i say running, i just mean writing a bunch of books in.

Jeff Parker doesn't strike me as a Bendis or a MIllar that makes books tie in together a lot. He does individual books. I think you are railing against things that I am not advocating. check out, especially the ass end of, my 'will joe quesada screw up brubaker's cap run?' thread; i think we agree more than we disagree.

anyway, i'm more concerned with the needs and wants of readers than fans. earlier you said 'oh this won't be good for creators.' screw the creators, let the company heads worry about that, they'll be fine, we're the readers...what do we want?

i think if big creators want to do superheroes...give them all star/astonishing type thing where they can go nuts with THEIR run. such things would prevent Kirkman types from leaving Marvel. and let people who want to do monthly superhero books do monthly superhero books.

and creators that deep down want to do creator -owned stuff should do so and if they want to do a marvel knights mini on spidey or whatever down the line that's cool.

I'm kind of sporadically spitting out ideas cause this is all stewing around in my head right now but I'm gonna have some clear thoughts on this, or at least clearer thoughts, by tomorrow. for now, I'm gonna sign off.

-T

Mike Bullock

08-14-2008, 02:43 PM

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 02:54 PM

earlier you said 'oh this won't be good for creators.' screw the creators, let the company heads worry about thatWell, I am a company head (albeit a smaller company (http://www.AboutComics.com/)), so I guess I am allowed to worry about that. And I certainly find it understandable that the creators are not your primary concern. It seems to me that Kirkman's manifesto was addressing those in the business, rather than those whom the business serves; my initial remarks were targeted to that same audience.

mgs

08-14-2008, 03:15 PM

it was interesting, but hard to agree with everything he believes. I did not agree with a lot of what he was saying, but like I said on Heidi's site, it was nice to see the enthusiasm and passion he has for this industry.

Darth Dizzt

08-14-2008, 03:17 PM

What he basically says in this video is that he wants to go on a cruise with the heads of the bigger comics publishers to plan the market between them... and what he wants the result of that plan to be is that the bigger publishers aren't offering the bigger creators those lucrative contracts any more, and those creators come create work for his company. That's right, he wants the bossmen to come together and end up with fewer good options for creators. Really, that should not exactly warm the cockles of any freelancer's heart.

Your absolutely right - that video was directed to "top talent" - which means already established, already published, and probably already working for Marvel or DC.

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talent - so I say "screw Image" - I'll never buy any of their comics after that.

suttercain

08-14-2008, 03:47 PM

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talent - so I say "screw Image" - I'll never buy any of their comics after that.

You think? I kind of thought that too, but I was like 'nah' they're not that dickheadish... but maybe I'm wrong. If what you're perceiving as truth, is truth, I agree with you. But I don't think that is what he's saying.

Mike Bullock

08-14-2008, 03:48 PM

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talent - so I say "screw Image" - I'll never buy any of their comics after that.

How in the world did you get that out of it? Image has given HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of "new talent" creators their first shot and chances are THOUSANDS more will get a shot as well.

HouseSolo

08-14-2008, 04:03 PM

How in the world did you get that out of it? Image has given HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of "new talent" creators their first shot and chances are THOUSANDS more will get a shot as well.

I agree, right now he says the steps are to go from small companies like Imagine to Marvel or DC and then you're done.

He's saying it should be small companies like Image, Marvel or DC, then back to the small companies like Image, but with your creator owned stuff.

Jay Faerber

08-14-2008, 04:03 PM

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talent - so I say "screw Image" - I'll never buy any of their comics after that.
He's absolutely NOT saying that. Saying "I like the rain" doesn't automatically mean "I hate the sunshine." Robert was "new talent" when he started at Image. Hell, Jason Howard, his artist on ASTOUNDING WOLF-MAN is a new guy.

Trust me -- Image is still interested in new talent.

~ Jay

suttercain

08-14-2008, 04:05 PM

I agree, right now he says the steps are to go from small companies like Imagine to Marvel or DC and then you're done.

He's saying it should be small companies like Image, Marvel or DC, then back to the small companies like Image, but with your creator owned stuff.

I'm down with whatever he said if Image still keeps the new talent coming in. I tend to love indies way more than superhero stuff.

Erik Larsen

08-14-2008, 04:12 PM

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talent - so I say "screw Image" - I'll never buy any of their comics after that.

That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

First--it makes no fucking sense--it's like saying "He's talking to that guy over there--now I'm pissed off and offended because he's not talking to me--I'm going to stop breathing because he also breathes air and I don't want to accidentally breathe in air that he breathed out."

Second-- Kirkman has brought in a ton of new guys and worked with a LOT of new talent. Just because he's not talking to those guys in a video is no reason to toss the guy to the curb. Again--it makes no sense. The guy encourages new guys to break in and develop their own stuff all the time-- just because he took established creators to task doesn't mean that he doesn't care about new talent.

And third-- Kirkman is a partner at Image. He's one of the guys who owns the company-- saying "screw Image" hurts the creators of those books-- and not buying Jack Staff or Madman or Dynamo 5 because of something another creator said--who has nothing to do with those books--is insane. It would be like me getting mad at you--finding out where you live--driving to your neighborhood and punching any random person who lives on your block in the face.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 04:21 PM

What he is really saying is he doesn't want to take a chance on new talentI'm the guy who has been taking the stance against his manifesto here, and even I don't think he's saying that. I don't see anywhere in his statement where he's calling for Image to stop doing anything they're doing (Marvel and DC, yes; Image, no.) Image isn't locked into a fixed number of titles; they seem free to grow in all dimensions.

juan ferreyra

08-14-2008, 04:23 PM

I totally agree.

imagine Alex Ross doing his own characters, Brian Hitch, Alan Davis, Frank Quitely, etc, teaming up with top writers to make the comics they would like to do. it would be awesome.

Now I have to get a job at Marvel, draw X-men for a year and then go to image.

(I worked on 4 images series already, it's a blast!)

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 04:36 PM

With all due respect, I think you're looking at the apples and not the pie. What Robert is asking them to do is sacrifice some pieces of the pie in order to exponentially grow the pie itself.I think we need to separate what he claims his goals are from what he actually advocates doing. He is asking them to stop competing so darn hard for the high-end talent he would rather were doing creator-owned books for Image. In fact, he's asking Marvel and DC to abandon most of the basis for their current publishing successes so that they can spend their efforts prepping both talent and readers for Image.
Luckily for creators, I don't see much risk of Marvel and DC acceding to his requests. I can certainly see them wanting to increase their young reader base; it's tough seeing why they as publishers would then want to forego the older reader as well.

And, as a freelancer myself, (and I'm sure I speak for lots of our peers) I can tell you I'd much rather write one book that gets bought by 100,000 people than write 5 books that are purchased by 15,000, especially if it's a creator-owned book.I really don't see what that has to do with this manifesto. His claim is to increase the number of total readers, not dividing said readers among fewer books. (If it did, I'd be a mite befuddled; reader growth in comics has generally come hand-in-hand with increasing the number of books.) In recent years, we've been seeing overall sales increases with general decrease in what the top titles sell; it's not the head that's been swelling, but the tail that's been getting longer.

Jimmykitty

08-14-2008, 04:39 PM

Slap in the face?

I had to go back and watch it again just to make sure there wasn't some subliminal message in the background. Look, no matter what nuanced details people have issues with... the presentation style, the pitch, the examples... the fact is Kirkman has his heart in the right place and putting it out there for not just his comics, but also for the entire industry. High tides lift all boats. Who doesn't want a healthy and growing industry?

So why take this editorial (by definition his opinion) and rip it to shreds? Is it just for the armchair quarterback fun? Or can we get on with some constructive discussion for once?

I'm not looking at the finger pointing at the moon, here. The end result is the goal. Kirkman even injected that he's probably saying wrong, thus it's not the delivery - it's the message.

I would love to see the 'Industry' get together at a corporate level summit. The retailers and Diamond distributor do this, they're not at odds working in their own lil' worlds. The comic industry should come together - especially now that the playing field has leveled out so much.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 04:47 PM

imagine Alex Ross doing his own characters, Brian Hitch, Alan Davis, Frank Quitely, etc, teaming up with top writers to make the comics they would like to do. it would be awesome.While I encourage them to chase their creative desires (I think it's a better route to happiness, if not always financial success), I wouldn't assume that their desires would be to do something different (certainly with Ross, it strikes me that he really likes doing his interpretations of classic characters). Nor would I assume that doing creator-owned material would mean them doing more sophisticated work for older readers, as Kirkman seems to believe. Looking at folks who've gone to Image to do creator-owned material in the past... well, sure you've had your Astro Cities, but you've also had your Leave It To Chances (a good kid-oriented read) and your Savage Dragons (forgive me, Erik, if I'm misdescribing it as it's been a few years since I've read it, but it always struck me as an example of straight-ahead superhero work, not without plot but not an example of gnarled sophistication or genre commentary -- something that could be considered a good comic for the newcomer.)

Erik Larsen

08-14-2008, 05:03 PM

While I encourage them to chase their creative desires (I think it's a better route to happiness, if not always financial success), I wouldn't assume that their desires would be to do something different (certainly with Ross, it strikes me that he really likes doing his interpretations of classic characters). Nor would I assume that doing creator-owned material would mean them doing more sophisticated work for older readers, as Kirkman seems to believe. Looking at folks who've gone to Image to do creator-owned material in the past... well, sure you've had your Astro Cities, but you've also had your Leave It To Chances (a good kid-oriented read) and your Savage Dragons (forgive me, Erik, if I'm misdescribing it as it's been a few years since I've read it, but it always struck me as an example of straight-ahead superhero work, not without plot but not an example of gnarled sophistication or genre commentary -- something that could be considered a good comic for the newcomer.)

You're misdescribing it.

Savage Dragon is a superhero book, sure--but it was really one of the first that was aimed at an older readership. It's not Watchmen--but there are more mature themes and strong language than have been in any issues of, say, Spider-Man.demographic.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 05:15 PM

So why take this editorial (by definition his opinion) and rip it to shreds? Is it just for the armchair quarterback fun? Or can we get on with some constructive discussion for once?Jimmy, I'm not sure how you think we're supposed to be viewing this 9-minute long manifesto. If we're not supposed to be criticizing the list of specific proposals and belief that make up the heart of it, are we supposed to be just ignoring those things and pretending that all he was saying is "it would be really good to have more comics readers"? Or are we supposed to be simply nodding along to what he says, pretending that we don't find things he's saying to be problematic and flawed and of questionable service to his stated goals?

Either he made this manifesto to encourage agreement or to encourage discussion of his ideas. He has not been universally successful in the former, but I don't see any reason to derail the latter.

I would love to see the 'Industry' get together at a corporate level summit. The retailers and Diamond distributor do this, they're not at odds working in their own lil' worlds. The comic industry should come together - especially now that the playing field has leveled out so much.And that's a fine proposal, although I'd want more definition of what is "corporate level"; the industry's creators are not generally corporate in nature. But yes, a meeting of the publishers and creators and distributors and retailers would have something to it.
However, that was not what Kirkman was proposing. He was talking about getting together the largest publishers... and since some of his ideas are built around having some publishers do away with lucrative deals for top talent, it would behoove the top freelance creators of the industry (and those who hope to become top freelaners) to be wary of such a gathering.

NatGertler

08-14-2008, 05:16 PM

You're misdescribing it.Fair 'nuff. Sorry 'bout that.

Darth Dizzt

08-14-2008, 05:19 PM

That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

First--it makes no fucking sense--it's like saying "He's talking to that guy over there--now I'm pissed off and offended because he's not talking to me--I'm going to stop breathing because he also breathes air and I don't want to accidentally breathe in air that he breathed out."

Second-- Kirkman has brought in a ton of new guys and worked with a LOT of new talent. Just because he's not talking to those guys in a video is no reason to toss the guy to the curb. Again--it makes no sense. The guy encourages new guys to break in and develop their own stuff all the time-- just because he took established creators to task doesn't mean that he doesn't care about new talent.

And third-- Kirkman is a partner at Image. He's one of the guys who owns the company-- saying "screw Image" hurts the creators of those books-- and not buying Jack Staff or Madman or Dynamo 5 because of something another creator said--who has nothing to do with those books--is insane. It would be like me getting mad at you--finding out where you live--driving to your neighborhood and punching any random person who lives on your block in the face.

Maybe I overstated the obvious - and maybe I over-reacted. Sometimes I post before thinking - BUT I don't know if I want to pull back from that knee-jerk reaction. I realize there is new talent at image - but let's be honest here. It sure as heck looks like a pitch to get some bigger names over there. That vid was full of a lot of mumbo jumbo - but the bottom line is that they want "top talent." That's the tag line on the video. That tells me they need a name to sell comics.

This guy is crazy. The comic industry is experiencing a boom right now - and to say that it is in some kind of trouble is actually DUMBEST thing I'VE HEARD. And with stuff like "Heroes" and "Devil's Cape" out there - you are looking at some new original work with some serious potential. So I don't even know where he is coming from - unless the bottom line is money - and that is the bottom line.

I sure would love to see what would happen to some of that newer talent if some of those bigger "names" do go over to Image. If they gotta make a decision between some new talent and Bendis I wonder who's gonna get the nod. But heck - we know that ain't ever gonna happen. So dream on....

Jay Faerber

08-14-2008, 05:47 PM

It sure as heck looks like a pitch to get some bigger names over there.
It was ... but that doesn't mean Image wants to shut out the new guys, too. You're looking at it like it's either/or, and it's not. It's not like Image is getting pitches for amazing books (from top guys OR newbies) and saying, "This looks great, but sorry ... we're full up on books right now."

This guy is crazy. The comic industry is experiencing a boom right now
It is? Look at what comics were selling in the 1990s -- during a real "boom" -- and look at what they're selling now. It's pretty sad. Creatively, it's a fantastic time for comics. But the audience isn't really growing.

And with stuff like "Heroes" and "Devil's Cape" out there - you are looking at some new original work with some serious potential.
Those aren't comics. Now you're talking about TV and novels.

I sure would love to see what would happen to some of that newer talent if some of those bigger "names" do go over to Image. If they gotta make a decision between some new talent and Bendis I wonder who's gonna get the nod.
As I said before ... they don't have to. I don't know why you think they do.

~ Jay

Darth Dizzt

08-14-2008, 05:59 PM

It was ... but that doesn't mean Image wants to shut out the new guys, too. You're looking at it like it's either/or, and it's not. It's not like Image is getting pitches for amazing books (from top guys OR newbies) and saying, "This looks great, but sorry ... we're full up on books right now."
Like I said - "knee jerk reaction." I really don't disagree with you here. But it sure looks to me they are making a pitch for big names - and that doesn't mean I think they want to dump their current writers.

It is? Look at what comics were selling in the 1990s -- during a real "boom" -- and look at what they're selling now. It's pretty sad. Creatively, it's a fantastic time for comics. But the audience isn't really growing.

Those aren't comics. Now you're talking about TV and novels.

I disagree with you here. You are looking outside of the "Image" line - right? Certainly "Heros" is transitioning into the comic realm and should "Devil's Cape" continue to make waves - its only a matter of time. You can't tell me "Hero's isn't raking in the cash now. The potential exists for these stories to develop into some serious comics. Dark Horse knows the secret behind this.

In regards to straight up comics - the audiance isn't growing because of the price. You want to see growth - then the prices gotta drop. Apparently some folks think original ideas from "top talent" is where its at. That's crap. There is plenty of original material and good stories out there from top talent already - but how for the life of me a 13 year old kid is gonna be able to afford all of it at 3 bucks a pop is beyond me. That is reality.

Jay Faerber

08-14-2008, 06:32 PM

But it sure looks to me they are making a pitch for big names - and that doesn't mean I think they want to dump their current writers.
Yes, I know. I haven't denied that he's making a pitch for big names. What I was disagreeing with was the notion that he's doing so at the expense of new talent.

I disagree with you here. You are looking outside of the "Image" line - right? Certainly "Heros" is transitioning into the comic realm and should "Devil's Cape" continue to make waves - its only a matter of time. You can't tell me "Hero's isn't raking in the cash now. The potential exists for these stories to develop into some serious comics. Dark Horse knows the secret behind this.
Sure, Heroes is raking in the cash ... as a TV show. And I know there have been some Heroes tie-in comics, but I don't know how successful they've been. Still, Heroes (in any medium) isn't exactly a creator-owned property, which is what this whole discussion is about. It's just another property owned by a corporation.

In regards to straight up comics - the audiance isn't growing because of the price. You want to see growth - then the prices gotta drop.
I disagree with you here. I don't think price is a big detriment. Look how expensive video games are, and those are sure popular with the kids. A few years ago, Marvel tried a line of comics priced at, what, $1.99 or something? They tanked. I also remember Marvel trying an experiment where they had two different formats for some of the X-titles. One had the glossy paper and was more expensive, and the other came out a week or two later and was printed on cheaper paper with a cheaper cover price, and readers preferred the format with the more expensive paper.

Apparently some folks think original ideas from "top talent" is where its at. That's crap. There is plenty of original material and good stories out there from top talent already - but how for the life of me a 13 year old kid is gonna be able to afford all of it at 3 bucks a pop is beyond me. That is reality.
I gotta wonder how closely you listened to Kirkman's editorial. His whole point was that the original works by top tier creators would be appealing to the existing crowd -- the guys in their 20s and 30s who follow creators from title to title. The 13 year olds would be introduced to comics through Marvel and DC super-hero titles and then, as they matured, would hopefully "graduate" to more mature books at a variety of publishers. I'm not saying it's a foolproof idea, but you're mischaracterizing his intent by what you wrote above.

~ Jay

Jimmykitty

08-14-2008, 06:34 PM

I like how Chris Schweizer puts it all in one declarative sentence:

Re: Kirkman video
"I don't see how it's as much as a creator's issue as a what-comics-should-be issue."

And that's what I was leaning at. Not the specific plans of Kirkman, but the intent and desire of what, where and how the comic industry can... and perhaps should be. Nobody has to go to Image.... everyone is different and will have different paths. The end goal is to grow the marketplace. How? Who the fuck knows? Top talent can self-publish, go to an indy publisher, start their own company, stay where they are and attempt a creator-own deal, whatever.

This idea that Kirkman, himself, must move corporate mountains with a specific plan is akin to an Obamaniac pinning all their hopes to one man, one plan. In fact, now that Kirkman has had his say, the ball is really in the other court. What will the reaction be? Who knows? When? Who knows?

But I know why. Because someone has to say something. Erik Larsen said the same thing in One Fan's Opinon (he got ripped down for that, too). This is not new, it just bears repeating.... especially now the playing field has become rather level. Creators have options now. This is not the 1980s, yet talented folks continue to flock to the big-two without consideration of the many, many possible options/tools available nowadays. And it's not even an either-or situation,as Kirkman was saying.

Granted there are some people who just don't have the chops to create something good on their own. But it's FREE to try! Hell, even a webcomic is available for free. Print-on-demand, online portals, direct to graphic novels, bookstores, whatever. If the top level talent have an audience then see where else they can take them. New talent, as well. The game is open to all.

Why are we rippin' on Kirkman, again?

Edit:
I can't seem to type tonight... typo city!

Brandon Hanvey

08-14-2008, 07:18 PM

The industry is on an upswing at the moment. Sales are increasing, but not in the traditional markets or publishing.

The biggest increase in sales for the past five years has been in trades and graphic novels. For the past couple years trades/gns have outsold monthlies in terms of overall dollars. This has a lot to due with bookstores increasing their presence in the comics market and direct market retailers increasing their stock of trades/gns.

But what is selling in the trade market is also somewhat different. If you look at the majority of comics sold in the bookstore market you'll not see Marvel or DC on top. It's manga publishers (which make up to 60-70% of comics sold in bookstores according to Bookscan numbers) and publishers like Viz making up almost 40% of books sold.

As for Marvel and DC trades most of their top sellers are books that is getting new life due to other media (Watchman, V for Vendetta, various Batman trades) or books such as Dark Tower that are based off a popular prose author's novels.

Price may be a factor to some, but there are a lot of people are buying trades that cost anywhere from $7 to $30.

But what does this mean to creators wanting to do their own books? While current market trends are not an easy route to rich for indie publishers, there is money to be made if you do it right and have a little luck.

By having control over what your book is like, you get to make all the decisions. You get to determine the price as long as it meets retail needs. You get to figure out how to market it. You get to decide the format and book design. Plus you get to make all the mistakes as well.

suttercain

08-14-2008, 08:02 PM

The biggest increase in sales for the past five years has been in trades and graphic novels. For the past couple years trades/gns have outsold monthlies in terms of overall dollars.

I might get slack for this, but I'd love Trade only comic stores. Give them more shelf space to stock the hard to find indies so I wouldn't have to order them online. Just a thought.

Jay Faerber

08-14-2008, 08:22 PM

I might get slack for this, but I'd love Trade only comic stores. Give them more shelf space to stock the hard to find indies so I wouldn't have to order them online. Just a thought.
It's a nice thought, and there are certainly comic stores that accent trades over singles, but I don't know if there are any that carry ONLY trades. I think it'd be tough to stay in business. You're not gonna get your "traditional" comics fans, because those guys are still hitting the store every Wednesday for their singles fix. And the non-traditional folks who buy only trades are likely to either buy them online or at "real" bookstores.

I could be wrong ... maybe there are trade-only brick-and-mortar stores, but I kinda doubt it.

~ Jay

Darth Dizzt

08-14-2008, 08:23 PM

I disagree with you here. I don't think price is a big detriment. Look how expensive video games are, and those are sure popular with the kids. A few years ago, Marvel tried a line of comics priced at, what, $1.99 or something? They tanked. I also remember Marvel trying an experiment where they had two different formats for some of the X-titles. One had the glossy paper and was more expensive, and the other came out a week or two later and was printed on cheaper paper with a cheaper cover price, and readers preferred the format with the more expensive paper.

Forget the formats - forget a new line - forget the gimmicks. I guarantee you that if they ran the current storylines at cheaper prices - they would have an increase in sales volume. I have three kids - two of whom are 15 and 12 and they simply cannot believe how much I pay for comics. You stop any kid on the street and ask them if they think 3$ is a decent price for a comic. I guarantee you that most will say it isn't (if they are honest) - particularly when you add in the factor of getting a minimum of 10 comics a month on a monthly basis.

Now for me - an adult who has a good job and is making some decent money - the price is not a big deal. I have no problem dropping 50-75 bucks a month on comics. But come on - let's be realistic - that's a heavy lift for a young teenager or younger. And I'm not talking about spoiled brats who get everything handed to them from mommy and daddy. Most kids parent's aren't going to drop that kind of money for comics on a monthly basis either. Now I know that subscription rates are better and we could go on and on and back and forth - but to attract the younger generation the first thing they are going to have to do is drop their newstand prices.

Now I can't speak for myself because I'm a comic fan - but my wife sees a comic for 3$ and compares it to a decent paper-back that goes for 6$ - she is going for the paperback to get for the kids everytime. It ain't right (they don't understand the value of good art) - but that is reality among mainstream america.

If mainstream and other companies don't drop their prices - then yes - TV shows, movies, and even great novels like "Devil's Cape" are going to have to be what drives this industry - not accomplished writers with good original ideas. They already exist and that is not the problem.

Brandon Hanvey

08-14-2008, 10:03 PM

Prices are pretty much as they are because of the cost of creating, printing, distributing, and promoting them.

Plus keep in mind publisher's tend to not sell them directly to readers. They go through a distributor and a retailer who take cuts. A typical publisher makes around 30% to 40% off cover price. Sure publishers could drop the price of cost by a little, but then they would need to sale a lot more in order to turn a profit at the current amount it costs to produce a comic.

Plus I think part of the problem some kids think some comics are too expensive is to they see better deals from other publishers. Viz offers them a 200 page digest trade for $7 or $8 while Marvel and DC offer 24 to 32 pages for $3. Now if I was a kid and I wanted to read something, I'd go for the thing that gave me more bang for my buck.

suttercain

08-14-2008, 11:09 PM

I too spend a lot of money (about $200 per month) on comics... well actually trades. I find them to be way more enjoyable than anything on television or on film. I don't mind spending 10-15 bucks on a thin trade if the story is good, where as the opposite stands for a costly bad thick trade that sucks (Aliens Omnibus 2 anyone?).

I do know that as a teenager I would never have been able to buy so many books and I would be a lot more careful when doing so.

Look 'Hip Flask' is expensive for such a thin amount of content, yet the artwork and excellent writing make up for it in my opinion.

I'm tired and I don't know where I'm going with this so I'm gonna shut up.

RaulTheCat

08-15-2008, 08:01 AM

Forget the formats - forget a new line - forget the gimmicks. I guarantee you that if they ran the current storylines at cheaper prices - they would have an increase in sales volume. I have three kids - two of whom are 15 and 12 and they simply cannot believe how much I pay for comics. You stop any kid on the street and ask them if they think 3$ is a decent price for a comic. I guarantee you that most will say it isn't (if they are honest) - particularly when you add in the factor of getting a minimum of 10 comics a month on a monthly basis.

Now for me - an adult who has a good job and is making some decent money - the price is not a big deal. I have no problem dropping 50-75 bucks a month on comics. But come on - let's be realistic - that's a heavy lift for a young teenager or younger. And I'm not talking about spoiled brats who get everything handed to them from mommy and daddy. Most kids parent's aren't going to drop that kind of money for comics on a monthly basis either. Now I know that subscription rates are better and we could go on and on and back and forth - but to attract the younger generation the first thing they are going to have to do is drop their newstand prices.

Now I can't speak for myself because I'm a comic fan - but my wife sees a comic for 3$ and compares it to a decent paper-back that goes for 6$ - she is going for the paperback to get for the kids everytime. It ain't right (they don't understand the value of good art) - but that is reality among mainstream america.

If mainstream and other companies don't drop their prices - then yes - TV shows, movies, and even great novels like "Devil's Cape" are going to have to be what drives this industry - not accomplished writers with good original ideas. They already exist and that is not the problem.

I agree with lower prices. I started reading in the early 70s and they were .20, .25. As I got older the prices went up, but so did the amount of money I had to spend on them. By the time I had a stable job with more disposable income (mid to late 80s) they were .75 to 1.00. I didn't really bat an eye, because the prices moved so slow. Kids today are not getting that benefit, they are starting at the highest comics have ever been right out of the gate.
And comics have a lot of competition...as you noted, video games, movies, and the internet, which is free (well, free to the kids, anyway, not the parents.). There are plenty of sites out there that provide free comics, and most kids are going to take that into consideration, rather than spending 2.99 on a comic that they may spend 15 to 20 minutes on.

Mike Bullock

08-15-2008, 10:31 AM

I agree with lower prices. I started reading in the early 70s and they were .20, .25. As I got older the prices went up, but so did the amount of money I had to spend on them. By the time I had a stable job with more disposable income (mid to late 80s) they were .75 to 1.00. I didn't really bat an eye, because the prices moved so slow. Kids today are not getting that benefit, they are starting at the highest comics have ever been right out of the gate.

And when we were young in the 70s, you could go to McDonald's and get an entire meal for under a dollar. Now it's $6-7. So, kids are paying the highest ever for McFood too, but that isn't stopping McDonalds from poisoning us daily in record numbers...

Mike Bullock

08-15-2008, 10:35 AM

I think we need to separate what he claims his goals are from what he actually advocates doing. He is asking them to stop competing so darn hard for the high-end talent he would rather were doing creator-owned books for Image. In fact, he's asking Marvel and DC to abandon most of the basis for their current publishing successes so that they can spend their efforts prepping both talent and readers for Image.
Luckily for creators, I don't see much risk of Marvel and DC acceding to his requests. I can certainly see them wanting to increase their young reader base; it's tough seeing why they as publishers would then want to forego the older reader as well.

I really don't see what that has to do with this manifesto. His claim is to increase the number of total readers, not dividing said readers among fewer books. (If it did, I'd be a mite befuddled; reader growth in comics has generally come hand-in-hand with increasing the number of books.) In recent years, we've been seeing overall sales increases with general decrease in what the top titles sell; it's not the head that's been swelling, but the tail that's been getting longer.

We must be watching different videos, because I'm seeing nothing but noble intent where you seem to see some nefarious scheme to fleece other publishers of their meal tickets... Spider-Man sells Marvel comics, not "Creator X". Sure big name guys & gals help, but take them from the latest Wolverine comic and put them on one starring Jack of Hearts or Wasp and see what happens with the sales.

RaulTheCat

08-15-2008, 10:46 AM

And when we were young in the 70s, you could go to McDonald's and get an entire meal for under a dollar. Now it's $6-7. So, kids are paying the highest ever for McFood too, but that isn't stopping McDonalds from poisoning us daily in record numbers...

Good point.
But besides prices, distribution is definitely an issue. The days of finding comics at the local 7-11 are over, which is pretty sad. It's a price thing, I'm sure, and the fact that comics have basically phased out returnable newstand distribution.

dan bailey

08-15-2008, 10:46 AM

most kids are going to take that into consideration, rather than spending 2.99 on a comic that they may spend 15 to 20 minutes on.

15 to 20 minutes? Only if they're still learning to read, I'd wager. (Kirkman, for instance, does a great job with Walking Dead, but I'm probably dropping it because I'm tired of spending nearly $3 for a comic I've been known to read while idling at a couple of stop lights between the LCS & my house. Yeah, I read fast, but not superhumanly so.)

Mike Bullock

08-15-2008, 10:47 AM

Good point.
But besides prices, distribution is definitely an issue. The days of finding comics at the local 7-11 are over, which is pretty sad. It's a price thing, I'm sure, and the fact that comics have basically phased out returnable newstand distribution.

Well, the distribution is definitely an anchor around the industry's neck. :frown:

dan bailey

08-15-2008, 10:50 AM

And when we were young in the 70s, you could go to McDonald's and get an entire meal for under a dollar. Now it's $6-7. So, kids are paying the highest ever for McFood too, but that isn't stopping McDonalds from poisoning us daily in record numbers...

So, let's see ... That McDonald's meal costs, what, 4 times what a comic did in '73? And now it costs twice what a comic does.

Sorry -- that still seems a bit untoward.

pmpknface

08-15-2008, 11:24 AM

Tanjint

08-15-2008, 03:05 PM

I get the "heart" of what Kirkman is getting at, but he loses me about 1/2 way through.

1) I don't understand why a creator shouldn't, if given the opportunity, do BOTH an indy book and a big 2 book. Many here have brought up Matt Fraction's "my x-men pay for my Cassanova" quote and I think that fits. Plus I like to think having a big 2 book keeps a creator's name out there so that others can see it and draw in readers from other audiences.

By Kirkman's rational, if you get "big" (whatever that is, I don't know how to judge it) you leave and do your own stuff. But what about after 4,5.. 10 years. Now you've got a whole NEW generation that doesn't know you ever wrote Spider-Man or drew Batman.

2) If Kirkman wanted Marvel and DC to do certain types of stories then he should be working there. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that either company is about to change their goals and their publishing plans to aim even younger and alienate the crowd that mostly buys books today. At least Marvel is aiming younger with the Adventures line, and if Kirkman thinks that's too "dumbed down" then maybe that line could be tweaked with. But I don't think the Ultimate line is dumbed down at all. What's wrong with that? I have cousins that LOVE Ult Spidey and are between 10-14.

I'm all for creators branching out, making their own toys and playing in their own sandbox. I just don't see why they can't do BOTH.

[/END SOAPBOX RANT]

Once more cause if someone likes fraction and sees his x-men book and casanova on the shelves...they're gonna buy x-men(assuming they can't afford to buy the both, which MANY are saying is OFTEN the case these days). But if he's only doing casanova....they gotta make the choice. Many or even most will stick with x-men(which is why Kirkman is saying marvel/dc won't be losing much by working with him on these ideas) but many that wouldn't have otherwise picked up an indie book, will now and will be more willing to try other non mainstream books thus helping the whole industry.

also, Jimmykitty....I think Kirkman (and as you mentioned before Erik) have started the discussion...and the discussion is now definitely being had, but there's gonna be some bumpy talking points...but people are talking, please believe it.

In regards to the price thing...Kirkman mentioned the Marvel Adventures line. I only read the Peter David and Jeff Parker Marvel adventure books...and they are GREAT. Like some of my favorite comics and I think many agree. It's not that the books talk down to kids...it's that Marvel puts second-stringers on the art chores(Not to put down those artists, I love the books but the artists Marvel is putting on them do not move units).

My friend recently took his little cousin, like a 5 year old kid, to the comic shop and while I was suggesting to get him a marvel adventures book(not because it's talking down to him, but because the stories are accessible on many levels, and fun and funny) the kid chose a random issue of civil war because McNiven's spider-man looked BAD ASS.

Now that kid is gonna read that random issue of civil war and be so confused and turned off by political intrigue and insinutations about sue storm's infidelities that he will probably NOT be moved to buy another comic any time soon.

BUT if Marvel had put Steve McNiven on Jeff Parker or Peter David's Marvel adventures spidey or avenger....the kid would have picked THAT book up, read a story that he could get a beginning middle and end too and wanted MORE.

Marvel isn't investing enough into the marvel adventures line. Writers like Parker and David are a start, but they need to start matching it with a-list artists like McNiven and the like.

This also ties into the price thing: the marvel adventures digests are CHEAP. Like 4-10 bucks for 4-6 issues of awesomeness. Put McNiven art on those digests and the kids will eat it up and get the bang for their buck.

also, someone said if you get big on Batman and X-men for a year and then leave to do your creator owned book monthky....how will the new kids know you did Batman 6 years ago? Simple, do a 6 issue all-star batman arc. do a marvel knights spidey mini. get your name out there again and then force the readers who liked it to follow you to your indie book all over again.

Like Kirkman said, if he does good work that sells with his indie stuff, regardless of how much his video editorials offend the big two, they will let him sell a book for them.

Look at Moore and Miller: they've said countless horrid things about the big two but no one will EVER stop them from doing Batman or X-Men if they so chose.

Kirkman's point is simple and valid: spider-man and x-men don't need the top pre-established talent. COMICS need top talent. Keep spidey and x-men flowing with new blood, if the work is good, kids and adults are gonna buy monthly spidey and x-men books. there's marvel knights and all-star for a reason. the top talent can scratch their avengers or x-men or superman itch whenever they want.

Marvel adventures books should be the main books and Millar and Bendis crazy and awesome over complication of spidey and x-men should be marvel knights books. I'm rambling, I think you get my point.

and yeah Kirkman's not saying everything he said is wrong or right, he just wants the discussion to get started and it's awesome to see creators and comic company-men already getting in on this discussion.

-T

ultramandingo

08-15-2008, 06:06 PM

fan boy
fan man
dead man

........thats going on my tombstone - either that or

" AVENGE ME !!! "

Tanjint

08-15-2008, 06:25 PM

LOL nice

i suppose you can have both

-T

GRANT!

08-15-2008, 11:45 PM

1) I don't understand why a creator shouldn't, if given the opportunity, do BOTH an indy book and a big 2 book. Many here have brought up Matt Fraction's "my x-men pay for my Cassanova" quote and I think that fits. Plus I like to think having a big 2 book keeps a creator's name out there so that others can see it and draw in readers from other audiences.

Matt Fraction isn't the type of creator Kirkman talking about... yet. If he gets to point where "Matt Fraction" sells a book then yeah maybe it's in his and his fans best interest to focus on books like Casanova when he's at his most successful.

By Kirkman's rational, if you get "big" (whatever that is, I don't know how to judge it) you leave and do your own stuff. But what about after 4,5.. 10 years. Now you've got a whole NEW generation that doesn't know you ever wrote Spider-Man or drew Batman.

Honestly the more successful creator owned guys would be cool with that. I think Frank Miller would be fine with the "creator of Sin City" or Mike Mignola with the "creator of Hellboy." And these aren't books that have huge numbers but both creators made more then a decent living off of them.

Now look at Chris Claremont who defined what we know as the X-Men. It's a little depressing that all he's ever going to be known for is doing a long stint on the X-Men. I'm not even sure he could get a creator owned property off the ground now. Similar thing happened to John Byrne. He did some really cool creator owned work but his popularity was fading as the time and he had to go back and do Big Two work which wasn't as good his Big Two work at his peak.

2) If Kirkman wanted Marvel and DC to do certain types of stories then he should be working there. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that either company is about to change their goals and their publishing plans to aim even younger and alienate the crowd that mostly buys books today. At least Marvel is aiming younger with the Adventures line, and if Kirkman thinks that's too "dumbed down" then maybe that line could be tweaked with. But I don't think the Ultimate line is dumbed down at all. What's wrong with that? I have cousins that LOVE Ult Spidey and are between 10-14.

That's cool. But he's arguing why should a good chunk of the big two books be aimed at a diminishing audience. Kids love Spider-man, Iron Man, Batman and Superman. The Adventures books just sends a message to kids, "Hey the main Spider-man book isn't for you. Try this while the grown ups enjoy themselves." I started reading comics when the Batman Adventures books started popping up at DC and it was a great book that I appreciate now but at the same time it felt like "the kids table."

I think it should be the reverse. I'd read Grant Morrison's Batman in whatever form. It doesn't have to be Batman 724 or whatever. Why do older fans need to hold on to the main books? Wouldn't it make sense that the longest running Batman books be aimed at the large possible audience?

It's fine to have some of these books skew a little older. But a majority should be aimed at a larger audience.

RaulTheCat

08-16-2008, 08:14 AM

That's cool. But he's arguing why should a good chunk of the big two books be aimed at a diminishing audience. Kids love Spider-man, Iron Man, Batman and Superman. The Adventures books just sends a message to kids, "Hey the main Spider-man book isn't for you. Try this while the grown ups enjoy themselves." I started reading comics when the Batman Adventures books started popping up at DC and it was a great book that I appreciate now but at the same time it felt like "the kids table."

I think it should be the reverse. I'd read Grant Morrison's Batman in whatever form. It doesn't have to be Batman 724 or whatever. Why do older fans need to hold on to the main books? Wouldn't it make sense that the longest running Batman books be aimed at the large possible audience?

It's fine to have some of these books skew a little older. But a majority should be aimed at a larger audience.

Right now, they are preaching to the choir.
The hardcore fans are going to buy the books no matter what, they'll buy them and bitch and piss and moan. And keep buying them.
We need to get new fans who will have a sense of wonder and 'Wow, that's cool'!
Like kids.

Tanjint

08-16-2008, 03:56 PM

that's what i'm saying when morrison or millar want to write spidey or superman...give 'em an all-star or a marvel knights mini, you know?

-T

Agent_Torpor

08-17-2008, 10:39 PM

All this video did was make me wonder what's wrong with Image and why'd they give partnership to this guy?

Agent_Torpor

08-17-2008, 10:41 PM

We need to get new fans who will have a sense of wonder and 'Wow, that's cool'!
Like kids.

Like the "First Class" and "Johnny DC" lines aren't enough? At what point do you realize that maybe you're not going to penetrate the youth market like you once did, esp. with more and more alternatives competing for the fresh young kiddie market? I thought that was fairly self-evident over the past 15 years and that major comics were marketing towards to the niche consumer market it has become. I guess not, at least according to this video.

Tanjint

08-18-2008, 12:29 AM

the problem with the adventures/johnny DC lines is the ART. If you put fuckin' McNiven or Lee on a "kid" book...the adults still buy it cause the art's amazing...and KIDS just buy the comic that looks the coolest(if at all) and if it's a 'kid friendly beginning-middle-end story' tha they're gonna be WAY more likely to be hooked then if they jump in the middle of an event like civil war or even old man logan.

I see little kids pick up civil war instead of marvel adventures books because civil war looked cooler and then they don't come back cause a random issue of civil war didn't make no sense to 'em.

-T

dan bailey

08-18-2008, 06:55 AM

All this video did was make me wonder what's wrong with Image and why'd they give partnership to this guy?

Because he (a) writes popular books & (b) inexplicably thinks Image's early output is great & that the original creators, even the laughably ghastly Rob Liefield, are titans of talent & creativty?

CyberCoyote

08-18-2008, 07:01 AM

So deep into the thread now that I'm zipping through the posts. I agree with the guy. The cynic in me says, 'he was never as BIG at Marvel as he is on his own, so maybe his perspective is off' though. He was never a Bendis or a Claremont at Marvel. He never had the fat cat seat where he could kick back and TELL Quesada "I'm doing this, I'm doing that, I'll write this many issues.. no wait.. this many. Yes, I'm doing this for a reason but I'm so damned important I'm not telling anyone why and you just have to accept it."

Given I think he's a better writer than them. A while ago I turned my back on Marvel but not on Invincible. In fact Invincible and Dynamo 5 are my favorite books out there. I only got sucked back into Marvel because I was ordering the Marvel Adventures stuff for my 7 year old (I would never expose him to the 'wanna be' hipness of modern Marvel Books. Satanic Pacts, heroes sleeping with villains, etc. It's not that it can't make for a good story. It's just that it's not what made Marvel what it is. The MA books.. those are more true to what Marvel Comics are. You want Spiderman on a kid's backpack? Then write the damned book so the kid will be allowed to read the book he's in by his parents!)

The big 2 have a huge, solid base to write hundreds of years of stories in. Stories that can capture the hearts and imaginations of the kids. When those kids grow up they can migrate to the indy work that exists outside of those two publishers. The skills developed by those working UNDER their structure can branch out and write for the 'fan men' and make way for new and exciting talents who'll keep the big two alive and prosperous. It sounds like comic Utopia, a win win for everyone.

SO thank you for saying it Mr Kirkman, but I don't think the fat cats will ever allow it to happen.

WW Doctor

08-18-2008, 07:47 AM

I love what Kirkman is saying but even if some of Marvel and DC's top talent were to move to independent books, there will be many that will stay with Marvel and DC because they like and want to follow the characters. It's an old argument - do books sell because of the creators or the Marvel and DC characters?

For example , it will be very interesting to see what happens with Aspen Comics. Aspen Comics was started by Michael Turner and Turner was the best known talent. With his passing, will readers continue to care about Fathom, Soulfire and Shrugged? Or will these titles eventually disappear from the marketplace? Did Aspen Comics sell because of Turner or because readers actually enjoyed the characters and cared what happened to them?

Marvel and DC books sell because readers feel they have something invested in the characters, readers care what happens to these characters. This is why, despite all the grumbling that one will hear, many readers will pick up all these multi crossover events that Marvel and DC publish. The readers complain about spending all that money for these crossovers, but they feel invested in the characters so they buy anyway.

I hope what Kirkman is saying will make some readers think about what they buy. Is it really necessary to buy all the Civil War books if you only follow Spiderman? Would your money be better spent trying out an indie book rather than buying the latest Marvel or DC mega crossover event? I know I haven't bought a Marvel or DC book in years, and I haven't missed it one bit.

suttercain

08-18-2008, 08:57 AM

It's an old argument - do books sell because of the creators or the Marvel and DC characters?

From my own experience it is both. I'll buy comics like Superman, Action Comics, Batman, Detective Comics and Supergirl because of the characters, regardless of the writer. Although I'm going to stop reading Supergirl because it's really bad and I've given up hope.

On the other hand I have writers I'll buy without even knowing what the plot line is. Garth Ennis is one for example. Grant Morrison is another. I purchased 'The Filth' based on his name alone without knowing anything about the book.

Generic Eric

08-18-2008, 11:16 AM

Kirkman is not only a talented succesful comics writer he is now a partner in Image comics. He is now a going to be a publisher. This is him stirring up the water a bit to see what big fish creators are willing to stop being wage slaves for the big two and produce something new for his comics company.

This type of conversation has been going on for years from the likes of Dave Sim, Kevin Eastman, Frank Miller, Steve Ditko, Jack kirby, Warren Ellis, Erik Larson, etc and etc. More creator owned books might be good for the industry but it is exspecially good for those who already produce original work. Having others wanting to create indepanedant comics works in the favor of people like Robert Kirkman because it legitamitizes his own work in this vien.

dan bailey

08-18-2008, 11:17 AM

Although I'm going to stop reading Supergirl because it's really bad and I've given up hope.

I feel your pain. I gave up on that title something like 3 times -- circa ishes 8, 15 & 22 -- before it finally took. Actually, it may've been 4 times ... Obviously, I really, really wanted to give DC my money for this one, but just as obviously they insisted on putting out something unbearably wretched instead. From what I gather, they're still doing it.

WW Doctor

08-19-2008, 05:41 AM

From my own experience it is both. I'll buy comics like Superman, Action Comics, Batman, Detective Comics and Supergirl because of the characters, regardless of the writer.

I agree that is most cases it is both. However, my point was outside of Marvel and DC characters, can other characters actually sell a book, regardless of creator? I'm not so sure. Would say, Invincible, sell nearly as well if Kirkman decides to hand off the writing chores to a different writer?

Outside of some licensed properties like Star Wars, Transformers, GI Joe and Buffy (and a few other licensed titles as well), I have yet to see an indie book that sells because of the character alone.

That's why I brought up Aspen Comics. Aspen Comics was Mike Turner's company, and he was the name talent. With Turner's passing, do the characters have enough appeal to survive? Two years from now, I'm pretty sure there will still be a Batman and a Spiderman title being actively published. Fathom and Soulfire, I'm not so sure. I would like to hope that Aspen Comics will still be around in two years.

suttercain

08-19-2008, 07:32 AM

I agree that is most cases it is both. However, my point was outside of Marvel and DC characters, can other characters actually sell a book, regardless of creator? I'm not so sure. Would say, Invincible, sell nearly as well if Kirkman decides to hand off the writing chores to a different writer?

Good question. I am trying to think if their are any non DC/Marvel characters I'd follow if the writers was no longer attached. I don't think I'd buy the 'Goon' anymore if Powell left it for some reason. I think it is especially hard to envision someone taking over a title that still has the original writer. So I see what you're saying.

As far as characters I think the only one I'd stick with is Transformers regardless of the writer.

MNM

08-19-2008, 12:56 PM

Once more cause if someone likes fraction and sees his x-men book and casanova on the shelves...they're gonna buy x-men(assuming they can't afford to buy the both, which MANY are saying is OFTEN the case these days).

The problem I have is trying to understand why it is considered bad, or wrong, or harmful to the "comics indutry" etc.. if someone chooses the X-men book written by a particular writer rather than his creator owned property.

The fact that a book is creator owned doesnt inherently make it a better read, doesnt make it more benfical to comics, doesnt grow the medium etc..

I see nothing wrong with picking up and X-men or spiderman or Batman etc written by a "top" creator as opposed to some "original" characters that they came up with.

Tanjint

08-19-2008, 01:29 PM

But if there's no big-name that you like on the x-men book...you may still buy the book cause it's x-men and then you may also buy the creator-owned book that the big name guy that's not doing x-men anymore is doing and then you might be more likely to try other creator-owned/untested properties as a result of that.

Don't get me wrong. I love that I get to read Grant Morrison Batman and Bendis avengers and what have you, but even I can't deny that if the big names left to do independents...I'd probably still buy superhero books AND I'd be more likely to be forced to buy more indies/creator-owned if I still wanted to follow those writer's works.

-T

Tanjint

08-19-2008, 04:33 PM

also, I'm noticing most people reporting on Kirkman's video are missing a good 50 % of his point/argument:

Marvel and DC need to be bringing in young kids to comics.

Newsarama and CBR's reporters keep saying things like "Marvel and DC will never listen because they don't want to push their big-names away..." but that's only half of what Kirkman is saying about Marvel/DC.

-T

BigBoss

08-20-2008, 04:02 AM

Yes we need more kirkman is what we need. But dc and marvel will always be able to appeal to newbies and fans alike, but passionate comic fans will always wanna go after the more creative and intelligent books AKA independents.

Remember I didint say marvel and dc dont have intelligent books, iam just saying indies are usally more intelligent and creative and thats what the industry need's more of.

suttercain

08-20-2008, 07:59 AM

Yes we need more kirkman is what we need. But dc and marvel will always be able to appeal to newbies and fans alike, but passionate comic fans will always wanna go after the more creative and intelligent books AKA independents.

I think the problem is much deeper than a DC/Marvel VS. Indies thing. Comics in general have a bad reputation. When I tell someone I read comics they usually make some attempt at a geek joke or they give me a look like 'you're weird'.

IMO good comics are ten times better than film, yet kids (and a lot of adults) would rather watch a movie because it requires no reading and no imagination, where as comics require both. The new hollywood thing is to take a TPB and make it a film. Some big hollywood star now jumps on the band wagon, does interviews about how they never read comics (Heath Ledger anyone?), and everyone says how great the film is, forgetting the comic. Sure it may help sell some extra trades for a while, but most people will stick with film.

It shouldn't be comic company versus comic company, it should be how do we get people away from the other mediums and into these books. Man I should be a fucking CEO.

BigBoss

08-20-2008, 11:03 AM

I think the problem is much deeper than a DC/Marvel VS. Indies thing. Comics in general have a bad reputation. When I tell someone I read comics they usually make some attempt at a geek joke or they give me a look like 'you're weird'.

IMO good comics are ten times better than film, yet kids (and a lot of adults) would rather watch a movie because it requires no reading and no imagination, where as comics require both. The new hollywood thing is to take a TPB and make it a film. Some big hollywood star now jumps on the band wagon, does interviews about how they never read comics (Heath Ledger anyone?), and everyone says how great the film is, forgetting the comic. Sure it may help sell some extra trades for a while, but most people will stick with film.

It shouldn't be comic company versus comic company, it should be how do we get people away from the other mediums and into these books. Man I should be a fucking CEO.

by the way I would handle that geek joke by taking up some form of a fighting style like wrestling or boxing and go then beat his ass. proud member of the boxing gym for 6 months......... anyways back on topic, I think it's funny how people wanna make geek jokes about comics (say batman) but think the dark knight is the greatest thing since eva longorios pussy (witch only the watchmen book is that good) it's the image that people have about comics it's the cliches... AND WE NEED TO FUCKING BREAK THOSE CLICHES. CAN I GET A POWER TO THE NERD SAY OHH YEA BOY!!!...

Tanjint

08-21-2008, 01:49 AM

I think the problem is much deeper than a DC/Marvel VS. Indies thing. Comics in general have a bad reputation. When I tell someone I read comics they usually make some attempt at a geek joke or they give me a look like 'you're weird'.

IMO good comics are ten times better than film, yet kids (and a lot of adults) would rather watch a movie because it requires no reading and no imagination, where as comics require both. The new hollywood thing is to take a TPB and make it a film. Some big hollywood star now jumps on the band wagon, does interviews about how they never read comics (Heath Ledger anyone?), and everyone says how great the film is, forgetting the comic. Sure it may help sell some extra trades for a while, but most people will stick with film.

It shouldn't be comic company versus comic company, it should be how do we get people away from the other mediums and into these books. Man I should be a fucking CEO.

I totally agree which is why I am getting frustrated when people are lately (including the cbr/newsarama reports on the subject) neglecting the 'marvel and DC should more effectively pursue kids' stuff. that stuff is a huge part of his argument I think.for the industry to be healthy for all involved...Kirkman's model's not a bad one:

Marvel and DC keep new blood in creatively and audience wise

People discover creators due to their marvel/dc work and become aware of the indie/creator-owned/smaller press works by the same writers....as they age these customers are more likely to try more indies/creator-owned and will probably still pick up the mainstream books that have the characters they really like

it'd be nice but the current way of doing things is an easier, quicker, less risky way of doing them. Kirkman knows the corporate suits won't do it, that's why he's appealing to the fans and writers.

-T

Mike Bullock

08-21-2008, 05:53 AM

It shouldn't be comic company versus comic company, it should be how do we get people away from the other mediums and into these books.

Well said.

xarathos

08-21-2008, 03:02 PM

Well, I didn't watch the thing. But I don't think a lot of writers are going to leave their cushy Marvel/DC chairs to bring about the next big thing. I imagine it will come out of nowhere if it comes at all.

BigBoss

08-21-2008, 05:28 PM

I wonder what writer will bring the next big thing?

suttercain

08-21-2008, 05:39 PM

I wonder what writer will bring the next big thing?

I'm trying... I got a four issue mini-series I've been busting my ass on and I am hoping it'll get my foot in the door. That way I can pitch my ongoing series idea (which I have 3 issues already written for).

Keeping my nuts crossed!

Well said.

Thanks Mike. I just read Lions, Tigers and Bears Vol. 1 over the weekend and I truly enjoyed it. Just ordered vol. 2 from instocktrades.

Superboy-Prime

08-21-2008, 07:35 PM

I get what Kirkman is saying but he's wrong on all points.

Instead focusing on big names, he should try finding new talent. So what if Marvcel or DC locks up thier creators they have the right too and its not like the writers have a gun stuck to thier heads. I'm sure alot of writers know they can make a good living on creator owned stuff too...if its a really solid book. But getting big names to make creator owned titles isn't going to save the industry, it's finding the next big name(s) that are going too. Morrison and Johns aren't going to be around forever...and lets face it these guys love superhero books, its what insprired them to follow thier current career path.

BTW, I'm pretty sure if bendis stopped writing USM or any marvel comics to focus on powers or creator owned works, I'm pretty sure sales of his creator owned stuff won't increase dramatically.

The industry centers around the big two, without them there would be no comic industry,it'll fall flat on it's face.

Kirkman should stick to cultivating new talent instead of nagging about big names writing superhero books.

new talent+quality works=comic industry survival.

Superboy-Prime

08-21-2008, 11:34 PM

All this video did was make me wonder what's wrong with Image and why'd they give partnership to this guy?

whole-heartedly agree.

morganagrom

08-22-2008, 05:17 PM

GRANT!

08-22-2008, 06:31 PM

Kudos to Kirkman for bravely saying what people have been saying for years! How about putting the Image money where his mouth is.

It's not like creators don't know about the Image option. It's out there, but perhaps many creators don't want to shoulder the financial risk and essentially be self-publishers.

So why not offer them a better deal? Maybe a page-rate/advance on royalties comprable to what they might expect on their DC/Marvel books? If Image feels it needs to attach the ancilliary rights, leave the creators with at least as much of the rights as they would have at DC or Dark Horse.

There - half the problem's solved.

Image doesn't profit from any of the books they publish. They just take a flat fee to run the company. They wouldn't have the money to pay a page rate or hand out advances on books. And there are companies and lines within Image that do the kind of deal you talk about (I think Dark Horse does) but the creator potentially makes less money. It's nice to have another option.

The second half is a little tougher - Image, being a home for creator-owned properties, needs to launch a serious education campaign to sway people from buying as many Marvel & DC comics. Something like "creator-owned is better than company-owned" or encouraging people to buy their comics instead of "grandpa comics." Basically, Image needs to convince people that original ideas are more exciting and worthwhile than the latest non-event from DC/Marvel.

I think certain creators bring a decent percentage of their audience with them. War Heroes doesn't sell as well as Civil War but it probably sells well enough for Mark Millar and Tony Harris.

Unfortunately there's just a segment of the comics readership who will just read the same books from the big two. This argument didn't sway them when Image first appeared (and at their peak). Also these people get sort defensive at this notion ("Well maybe I enjoy reading just Batman comics).

Mike Bullock

08-23-2008, 09:14 AM

Thanks Mike. I just read Lions, Tigers and Bears Vol. 1 over the weekend and I truly enjoyed it. Just ordered vol. 2 from instocktrades.

Awesome, thanks. :D

Now grab up some Gimoles and Phantom. :)

morganagrom

08-23-2008, 02:19 PM

@GRANT!

Yes, that's the traditional Image model. However, it's been rumoured that Image might launch a second option, for select creators who want a page rate.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17322

"And there is gossip about an emerging new model of payments for certain creators and projects, with less of an emphasis on back-end payments and the introduction of page rates."

Where would they get the money? There's plenty of options. The most basic is the publisher can take a line of credit. It's pretty conceivable that a project with War Heroes-level creators would generate enough sales to make back the advances without much risk. A higher level option would be to seek out venture capital to launch projects while attaching some of ancillary rights and still leaving the creators with as much as they would have gotten through IDW or Dark Horse or Oni.

As for the education campaign, yes, there are the fanmen diehards, and no one could sway them away from their grandpa comics. However, there are a number of readers who simply like being involved with the current big thing, and Image's task would be to convice those readers that they are the current big thing. No doubt this is the much harder part.

GRANT!

08-23-2008, 11:01 PM

Gavin Higginbotham, BotF

08-24-2008, 09:40 AM

Believe Larsen and Valentino said this isn't true.

Yep. http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=42915&start=15

suttercain

08-25-2008, 07:52 AM

Newsarama posted an article on some creators who have responded, if anyone is interested.

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080820-BendisWB.html

morganagrom

08-26-2008, 12:40 PM

Yep. http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=42915&start=15

That's it?

Black Vespa

08-26-2008, 12:49 PM

I Betcha Erik Larsen put him up to this...in fact he likely had him restrained in a basement somewhere with a video camera strapped on a tripod, forcing him to read cue cards that support his views.

Tanjint

08-26-2008, 02:03 PM

LOL Nah, I think Larsen and Kirkman are just very much on the same page.

-T

ultramandingo

08-27-2008, 10:07 PM

GN Comics: I don't know if you saw it, but Robert Kirkman recently posted a video editorial on CBR that was sort of a call to arms for creators to work on creator-owned projects as opposed to company-owned characters, and how that would save the comic book industry. What's your take on the state of the industry right now?

Grant Morrison: I suppose I'm slightly amused by the reformer's zeal with which each new generation approaches the problem of 'saving' comics. It reminds me of humanity's charming, self-regarding notion that it's our job to 'save' a planet which has survived fine without us through several mass extinction events, climactic overhauls and planetary disasters.

I've been listening to people talk about 'saving' the 'industry' for over 20 years while comics have continued to be published and have, in fact, become better, to the point where the only conclusion I've come to is that comics are best 'saved' by sealing them in Mylar bags! Everything else is just messianic inflation. Just do good books and stop trying to be the savior of a whole medium that's been doing okay without you and will continue long after you're gone.

Yes, I think Kirkman's right, in that I'd like to see more of our creative community unleashing their wild imaginations onto the page and less of the obvious 'movie pitch on paper stuff' that's come about recently as a result of comic creators chasing the Hollywood dollar but I don't have a problem with writers and artists working on Marvel and DC properties if they enjoy it. I'd rather read a good Green Lantern story by someone who cares than work my way through a 'creator-owned' project that's been created solely to appeal to lowest-common-denominator movie executives.

Otherwise, he's possibly being slightly disingenuous by issuing this 'call to arms' at a time when, to be honest, I can't think of any significant comic book writer for Marvel or DC who doesn't have creator work on the go. Apart from Geoff Johns, who's told me he much prefers writing DC superhero books, everyone else - me, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, JMS, Garth Ennis, Matt Fraction, Brian Bendis, Kurt Busiek, etc etc - seems to be hard at work creating new properties, so I'm not entirely sure where the problem lies.

http://comics.ign.com/articles/902/902992p6.html

Gavin Higginbotham, BotF

08-28-2008, 02:12 AM

That's it?

Yeah. Someone mentioned about the page rate thing and Erik debunked it. Simple.

Tanjint

08-28-2008, 10:19 AM

Wow, even Morrison missed the point of what Kirkman was saying.

He certainly had some interesting insights as always but even he missed the point.

Concerning a few of Morrison's points:

A)When people refer to saving the world, I think they typically mean saving its inhabitants. No one really cares if the huge hunk of rock we're on is here and revolving after we're gone, we're more concerned with not being gone.

B)Sure Kirkman knows comics will be around in some form after his time but I think he'd like to see comics be able to attract kids again. When you have the most sophisticated counterculturalist writers of our generation (Morrison, Ellis, hell even Vaughan) writing X-Men and Batman....those books might not be as accessible to kids as one would hope, especially when one considers that Morrison and Ellis could still definitely move major units without the Batman or X-Men moniker on their books. Which leads to one of Kirman's main points...

C) Sure the significant writers in the industry are doing creator-owned books but let's do some quick hypothetical math:

Say Bendis sells 100,000 copies of New Avengers in a month and 20,000 copies of Powers. And then he STOPS WRITING New Avengers(and USM, and MA, and SI and Ultimate stuff and anything for the big Two or non-creator-owned properties.)....it's not unreasonable to think that after a few months for audiences to realize that this creator will NOT be releasing any Big Two work in the foreseeable future that some of them will follow the creator to his creator-owned book. If even a tenth of the 100,000 people that read new avengers of secret invasion bought powers instead...that's huge. That's 10,000 people that before may not have given a non huge superhero title a chance. That 10,000 people can save a couple vertigo books by a lesser known creator down the line as a result of this.

and writers like Morrison, Ellis, bendis etc. DO have that kind of following now. It would force audiences that like these writers to read more off-beat,less-mainstream books thus making them that much more likely to read other creator-owned, off-beat, less mainstream books.

Kirkman's not so much saying let's save the industry as he is saying let's change it...let's refine the model.

He wants Marvel/DC to bring in the youth, the youth will follow the Marvel/DC books until they grow tired of the cycle of non-change and then graduate to reading Vertigo/Image etc. to stimulate their loftier artistic stimulation desires and will probably STILL buy spider-man etc. because they like those characters.

But Marvel/DC do a poor job of bringing the youth in and hog and cherry-pick the cream of the crop creators like Morrison and Ellis.

The system we already have is a less fluid version of what Kirkman has in mind.

People do discover comics often through big superhero characters and then follow the writers of those books to creator-owned works which thus makes them more open to other creator-owned works from less notable creators.

What Kirkman would like to see is an in-pouring of readers so vast that Marvel/DC don't HAVE to hog the Morrison's and Ellis' of the industry and considering that kids in america certainly have their parents spend FAR more than 3-5 bucks a week on them, it's not unreasonable to ask this of the industry and he has to ask it because only Marvel and DC are in the position to bring in new readers on that scale.

and I can see the response "But they're not HOGGING the top creators...those creators are also doing the creator-owned works..."..if so you missed the point again, audiences aren't gonna buy transmet on the stands if they can get ellis' x-men (assuming they only have enough money for one ellis book that week...which can often be the case).

-T

Tanjint

08-28-2008, 10:41 AM

Now that I've spent time defending Kirkman's position alot I've been thinking about mine, which I will start hammering out in this discussion before I send Kirkman a letter and make a blog about it....

I think the time of getting kids into the comic shop is done and past. I think those in the comic book industry would do better to market to the counterculture and 18-24 year olds than the very young youth.

A) Counterculture: Kids that are into rock, hip-hop, punk, concert-going, art movements, art, cultural reform ...young liberal artist types. I find comics are very much so created and enjoyed by such people but a lot of these people don't know this medium is so suited to them.

For example, I propose comics that are friendlier to marijuana and recreational drug use. Many comics like Morrison's hang on this precipice but most are reined on these subjects because the underlying idea that comics should appeal to kids. But that is half-assed. The content is made inaccessible to children yet we still design the moral standards based in appealing to kids? Come on, commit to some demographics here. Make some stoner comics. I know there are tons of stoner creators and there are tons of stoners that would love to have a serial narrative to call home.

There are few good stoner TV shows. That 70's show is cancelled and too subtle. Weeds sells out and gets worse/more of a downer every season.

Good Stoner movies are too far and far between. It took two harold and kumars to get one movie as good as Pineapple express. That's like what Grandma's boy and Pineapple for this decade?

Comics have cool visuals and artistic people behind them...there's no reason stoners wouldn't plunk 3-4 bucks a month down on a good stoner friendly comic if this book made it's existence known to them.

Try to get comics into rock concert venues, indie music shops(not just virgin megastore where you're so inundated with media you don't know where to start) and other small places that more countercultural kids would go like independent book and music stores etc.

What's up with comics at art shows? Would art students and art-lover/museum attendees perhaps be more attracted to a visual art medium like comics more than the average member of the hoi polloi?

Fuck the 10 year old kids. They're gone. They're playing xbox. Get that goth kid down the street that likes Invader Zim that didn't know Johnny the Homicidal Maniac existed. Get that stoner-kid down the street that didn't know Invisibles existed. Kirkman complains that he only sees people that are 18+ at comicon. Screw that, get ALL the 18+ year olds. There's a TON of 'em that could be buying comics and enjoying it that aren't.

B) Even non-countercultural 18-24 year olds are a riper demographic than most. Most 18-24 year olds like sex, cool fight scenes, well-done stories and character work...and just cool shit in general.

I guess I would suggest the things I suggest above (market to the rock/hip-hop/concert going audience, indie book/music stores, art show venues, ) and add to that making cool viral videos that improve on what Kirkman did here and what Meltzer and co. did for his 'book of lies' trailer.

I'm 21 and I don't do this so much but my friends are always talking about the funny and cool little videos they watch on the net.

If comic creators, who are typically by nature creative and often funny/artistic/entertaining people, made a 5-6 min. video likely to be virus-ed around on the internet every once in a while and cleverly plugged their comic(s) in said video in an organic way...who knows what that could do?

People are quick to dismiss Kirkman's vid like he thinks he's saying things that no one's ever said before but I think Kirkman's perfectly aware of the non-new nature of these ideas. All of the things he's talking about doing are happening on some level on some scale but Kirkman is talking about a cooperative effort to streamline these movements for the diversification and growth of the industry.

-T

Agent_Torpor

08-28-2008, 04:45 PM

Morrison's take on Kirkman's grandstanding is SPOT-ON.

GRANT!

08-28-2008, 08:17 PM

Otherwise, he's possibly being slightly disingenuous by issuing this 'call to arms' at a time when, to be honest, I can't think of any significant comic book writer for Marvel or DC who doesn't have creator work on the go. Apart from Geoff Johns, who's told me he much prefers writing DC superhero books, everyone else - me, Warren Ellis, Mark Millar, JMS, Garth Ennis, Matt Fraction, Brian Bendis, Kurt Busiek, etc etc - seems to be hard at work creating new properties, so I'm not entirely sure where the problem lies.

I don't know if that's entirely true. Busiek, JMS and Bendis spend more time doing their Big Two books then their creator owned stuff. And it's been a while since Morrison himself had a creator owned book published. And those were his three issue mini's at Vertigo. Which were amazing. But lately he's just been doing DCU stuff which I enjoy (All Star Superman is great) but I wouldn't mind to see more of his own stuff.

Also plenty of the top comic book writers have creator owned books because they can find the time to do creator owned book on the side. But it seems like the creator owned work from top artists is pretty limited. I know the medium is now writer driven but it's be nice if more artists took the jump even though it's a greater risk but it'd make a difference. I mean we finally see JR Jr doing creator owned work.

Incidentely what looked better this week Kick Ass or the new Spider-man comic. I'm leaning towards Kick Ass. He really out Frank Millered Frank Miller on that one.