CBR News: Willingham talks "Robin"

[Arune Singh]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6352

[Max_Dillon]

I need to send a thank you note to Mr. Willingham for helping me to save an extra $2.50 a month

[Mister Intensity]

Interesting that the one event that was a real change of the status quo that wasn't event driven, Robin's father learning his son's identity, was given short shrift in favor of event driven changes that ultimately made the book less interesting.

Mister Intensity

[Young Avenger]

He pretty much blamed crossovers for his crappy run on Robin.

[Calamas]

He pretty much blamed crossovers for his crappy run on Robin.
I didn’t read it that way. He was asked which events were inflicted upon him and he answered. But not in an “it wasn’t my fault” kind of way. That’s not Bill Willingham. If he didn’t make excuses for what he did to Leslie Thompkins he’s sure not going to apologize for Robin. Willingham just doesn’t apologize for his work. No mater the quality, no matter the compromises. And he doesn’t care if we like it or not, as long as his bosses like it. A talented but surly individual who desperately needs a good editor, kind of like John Byrne before his fall from power. With Willingham, it’s agree with him or go away.

That’s my impression anyway.

[Captain Jim]

Kind of hard to resent Willingham for a run of books I didn't really care for when most of the things I disliked were dictated from above. :(

[Guts/Batman]

Kind of hard to resent Willingham for a run of books I didn't really care for when most of the things I disliked were dictated from above. :(

Kinda like the ending of Batman #644?

[Lubichev]

Kinda like the ending of Batman #644?
dingdingding.

Willingham, what are we to do with you?

[protege]

Do I still want to read Shadowpact?

[Mister Intensity]

While he's not bitter about "editorial interference," Willingham pretty much confirms Devin Grayson's comments about the editorial climate at DC.

The Jack Drake learning Tim's secret should have been the event that driven Robin for the next few years.

Mister Intensity

[Apathy Boy]

I didn’t read it that way. He was asked which events were inflicted upon him and he answered. But not in an “it wasn’t my fault” kind of way. That’s not Bill Willingham. If he didn’t make excuses for what he did to Leslie Thompkins he’s sure not going to apologize for Robin. Willingham just doesn’t apologize for his work. No mater the quality, no matter the compromises. And he doesn’t care if we like it or not, as long as his bosses like it. A talented but surly individual who desperately needs a good editor, kind of like John Byrne before his fall from power. With Willingham, it’s agree with him or go away.

That’s my impression anyway.Oh, for the love of -- Willingham gives a fairly gracious interview and you're still trying to take him to task for the way he conducts himself? "Willingham thanked the fans who are enjoying his books? Man, what a sanctimonious bastard!"

Look, I'll be the first to tell you his work on the Bat-books stunk. I think it's fairly clear that editorial interference contributed to that (and no one's going to convince me that the Bat-office didn't have anything to do with Leslie Thompkins, Murderer).

But Bill Willingham doesn't owe anyone an apology for his work. He tried to do what he was asked to do and many people didn't like it. It happens. Actually, it happens with every single comic ever produced.

And of course Willingham listens more to his editors than the readers. Do people not realize that writing comics is a job? In a job, you usually do what your bosses ask you. If I had to choose between a pay cheque and standing up for the integrity of a fictional character, I know I'd choose the former.

[SdotCopp]

i disagree, i just think he's a bad writer for batman or any bat-related characters. even if every single plot point was dictated from above I STILL would point a good amount of blame on willingham....his dialogue is cheesy and contrived

[Guts/Batman]

And of course Willingham listens more to his editors than the readers. Do people not realize that writing comics is a job? In a job, you usually do what your bosses ask you. If I had to choose between a pay cheque and standing up for the integrity of a fictional character, I know I'd choose the former.

And what if those editors are fucking the characters up?

Is he just supposed to take it without saying something?

There are multiple comic book companies you know...

[Forsaken_One]

And what if those editors are fucking the characters up?

Is he just supposed to take it without saying something?

There are multiple comic book companies you know...
Oh yes, and being known as an uppity primadona who can't follow editorial mandates is a great way to get hired by those other comic book companies, right?

I just shrug personally. If anything he did with a fictional character (be it him or editorial or a combination thereof) is so horrible I have a good feeling it can be retconned away or just ignored in a few years. Tim was all excited about Bruce adopting him? Bruce wanted to adopt him? Horribly out of character? Well in two or three years very few people are going to remember that it happened as long as future writers don't bring it up. And even fewer people will care.

It's just the way things work as far as I can tell. People don't seem to be snubbing Wolverine because he had some stupid looking bone-claws for a bit there. Spider-Man seems to be pretty popular despite the much addressed Clone Saga. Superman had a mullet for a bit, did that somehow loose him readers? Bad stuff happens, the writer moves on and the fans move on. So it doesn't seem like a writer should be screaming bloody murder over some somewhat stupid ideas.

[Guts/Batman]

Oh yes, and being known as an uppity primadona who can't follow editorial mandates is a great way to get hired by those other comic book companies, right?

True, indeed.

Plus, like big events there will be retcons of events during it.

[Calamas]

Oh, for the love of -- Willingham gives a fairly gracious interview and you're still trying to take him to task for the way he conducts himself? "Willingham thanked the fans who are enjoying his books? Man, what a sanctimonious bastard!"

Look, I'll be the first to tell you his work on the Bat-books stunk. I think it's fairly clear that editorial interference contributed to that (and no one's going to convince me that the Bat-office didn't have anything to do with Leslie Thompkins, Murderer).

But Bill Willingham doesn't owe anyone an apology for his work. He tried to do what he was asked to do and many people didn't like it. It happens. Actually, it happens with every single comic ever produced.

And of course Willingham listens more to his editors than the readers. Do people not realize that writing comics is a job? In a job, you usually do what your bosses ask you. If I had to choose between a pay cheque and standing up for the integrity of a fictional character, I know I'd choose the former.
It’s kinda funny that you take me to task and then go on to say pretty much the same thing, though admittedly in a different tone. Initially I defended Willingham, as I did not think he was making excuses, which was the way it was taken by someone before me. I said then and still maintain that Willingham does not make excuses. Ever. Sometimes arrogantly so. Okay, not in this interview, but I didn’t say that he did. I said that he does not apologize, and I used Leslie Thomkins as an example because it was mostly from his own words on this matter that I drew the above conclusion. He said something like: “We prefer you like what we do but we don’t care if you hate it too--just as long as you’re not indifferent. And if you’re so mad that you swear to never buy anything we do ever again, we don’t believe you.” Not his exact statement, going from memory, but words to that effect.

If you still think “surly” is too strong, drop by his website and browse around awhile. As far as I know he’s not as bad as John Byrne, deleting posts and banning people for anything that comes remotely close to criticism, but Willingham does slap people down before they lean too far toward actual dissent.

Perhaps that what set you off, me comparing him to Byrne. Yet that was the way Byrne was. He produced some great work, but once he reached the apex of his power--his revival of Superman--his deals would now have to include carte blanche. The result was Spider-Man: Chapter One. With nobody to keep him in check, he lacked focus and ran amok. It’s been down hill ever since.

Willingham is a similar talent, though without the power. Look how brilliant Fables is. It’s hard to mischaracterize your own creations. So he doesn’t, and he’s hardly missed a step. But inside the DCU, he apparently needs guidance. And that’s certainly not going to come from the Bat-Editors, as we've seen with others. But I am looking forward to the Shadowpact. Because these are largely unused characters, he’s working with a clean slate.

This should be great.

[Apathy Boy]

It’s kinda funny that you take me to task and then go on to say pretty much the same thing, though admittedly in a different tone. Initially I defended Willingham, as I did not think he was making excuses, which was the way it was taken by someone before me. I said then and still maintain that Willingham does not make excuses. Ever. Sometimes arrogantly so. Okay, not in this interview, but I didn’t say that he did. I said that he does not apologize, and I used Leslie Thomkins as an example because it was mostly from his own words on this matter that I drew the above conclusion. He said something like: “We prefer you like what we do but we don’t care if you hate it too--just as long as you’re not indifferent. And if you’re so mad that you swear to never buy anything we do ever again, we don’t believe you.” Not his exact statement, going from memory, but words to that effect.

If you still think “surly” is too strong, drop by his website and browse around awhile. As far as I know he’s not as bad as John Byrne, deleting posts and banning people for anything that comes remotely close to criticism, but Willingham does slap people down before they lean too far toward actual dissent.

Perhaps that what set you off, me comparing him to Byrne. Yet that was the way Byrne was. He produced some great work, but once he reached the apex of his power--his revival of Superman--his deals would now have to include carte blanche. The result was Spider-Man: Chapter One. With nobody to keep him in check, he lacked focus and ran amok. It’s been down hill ever since.

Willingham is a similar talent, though without the power. Look how brilliant Fables is. It’s hard to mischaracterize your own creations. So he doesn’t, and he’s hardly missed a step. But inside the DCU, he apparently needs guidance. And that’s certainly not going to come from the Bat-Editors, as we've seen with others. But I am looking forward to the Shadowpact. Because these are largely unused characters, he’s working with a clean slate.

This should be great.Ah, OK. If I reacted harshly, it's because I thought you were reading too much into the interview in question. Willingham was being quite cordial there and it'd be unfair to view him as "surly" and "arrogant" based on those benign comments.

Lately, I've found myself appalled by the personal invective that's often directed at internet whipping boys like Judd Winnick ("He's going to give all the characters AIDS!") and Devin Grayson. Criticism of their work is fine, but some fans repeated attacks start to feel personal and... obsessive. Bill Willingham is well on his way to becoming another of those targets, so I felt obliged to point out that your perceptions of the interview seemed unfair. But your follow-up post has resolved any of the misgivings I had with your initial comments.

And what if those editors are fucking the characters up?

Is he just supposed to take it without saying something?

There are multiple comic book companies you know...Sure, he can speak up if he disagrees with the editors. But at the end of the day, the editor will have the final say. And that'll be the case at any of the major comic companies. So unless he wants to get into self-publishing exclusively, at some point he's just going to have to work with what he's given.

I imagine that, for many people, the thrill (and payday) of working on Batman will greatly outweigh the desire to preserve the creative integrity of a bunch of fictional characters.

[titanfan]

But I am looking forward to the Shadowpact. Because these are largely unused characters, he’s working with a clean slate.


Ugh, that's the thing. Several of them are *not*. And my problems with Shadowpact are the same as they were with Robin. My criticism of him is similar to that of Winick. Both are great when they write their own stuff from scratch. But it seems very difficult for them to get the right voice of a character established by someone else. There are some writers who can do this seamlessly, those characters act and talk and think like they did by previous writers. Others may understand the general nature of a character--but something is just--off. That's what I get with Willingham. (The whole Leslie Thompkins thing was a debacle, both in idea and execution. You may or may not blame Willingham for the idea, but the execution was really bad.)

[Forsaken_One]

Granted Shadowpact isn't a completely blank slate, but it's about as close as you can get to one in the DCU. In Robin he started a run in the middle of the comic; there wasn't any time between the issue before his first issue and his first issue so any mischaracterizations were just that. Hell, it's the same way with Winnick and Green Lantern (Kyle) and Nightwing (in Outsiders); they both had previous characterization he had to fit to and he didn't do it all that well.

But in the Shadowpact case he's taking characters that, by and large, haven't been used in a major way in any ongoing for several years (I think, I don't pay that much attention). In addition to that he's doing it after the One Year Later thingamajigger, so any mischaracterization can be explained away as changes in individuals over the course of several years.

[Captain Jim]

inside the DCU, he apparently needs guidance. And that’s certainly not going to come from the Bat-Editors...

I'm confused. As I see it, the complaints are coming over storylines that are being dictated by editorial. So how can you say *he* needs guidance but won't get it from the editors? Unless this is an attempt at sarcasm, I'm not following you at all. :confused:

[Calamas]

I'm confused. As I see it, the complaints are coming over storylines that are being dictated by editorial. So how can you say *he* needs guidance but won't get it from the editors? Unless this is an attempt at sarcasm, I'm not following you at all. :confused:
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic even if I’ve been guilty of it way too often, though usually not on message boards as it doesn’t translate, at least for me. Probably just not being clear enough.

I feel Willingham needs some kind of editorial guidance because even taking into account mandated crossovers and plot points, his work on the BatWorld in general and Robin in particular has been just plain bad. Robin is the only title that I get each month that I don’t enjoy, a book I’ve been getting since Willingham took over, and for one reason: his name is on the cover. In fact, early in his run I kept encouraging others to stick it out, that based on his history this had to get better. It never did. I almost gave up the book once, but they removed Damon Scott from the art before I could remove myself. And each month since I see just enough to keep me hoping, to keep me buying. In reality, though, it’s Elementals and Fables that foolishly keeps me buying.

The way I see it, because the two comics I just mentioned are his own creations, and because Days of Vengeance featured characters that were practically clean slates or so altered by the story (in the case Jean Loring/Eclipso and the Spectre) that it was near impossible to write them wrong, the Batman Family, established characters with established personalities and relationships, seem to pose a problem. That seems to indicate that some sort of editorial guidance is needed.

Why I think that guidance isn’t present should be obvious. The very crossovers and plot points already mentioned. It often appears as though the caretakers of these characters don’t seem to care very much. But I’m not up to going into Leslie Thompkins, Spoiler, and the rest of the laundry list. Whether you agree with any of them or not, you have to be aware of them.

Who knows, maybe I was expecting too much. Maybe I’m doing it again with Shadowpact. Probably won’t be the last time either. So be it. For that matter, looking back, I’m not sure I said anything I didn’t say before. If I failed to make myself any clearer, this will have to do. I don’t know how else to say it.

[Captain Jim]

No, I think that clarifyed matters somewhat for me. I suspect you probably *did* expect too much, as I agree with you that his run has been lackluster at best. I don't think additional editorial guidance would have helped matters, though. I think all the various things that were dictated by editorial were a big part of the problem.