CREATORS ON CREATOR-OWNED: Kirkman, Millar & Niles

[CBR News]

CBR is proud to present a new ongoing series of roundtable discussions on creator-owned comics, starting with modern masters Robert Kirkman, Mark Millar and Steve Niles talking rights, responsibilities, Hollywood and more.


Full article here.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

I am a supporter of Indie comics and creators because I just think you get a greater variety of product that way. However what sometimes really annoys me is when a creator who chooses to work for The Big Comic Companies says stupid stuff like "I don't want to create anything for DC or Marvel because I don't want them to make a movie out of it!" That simply is nonsense, the reason why these companies hired you in the first place was for your creativity and talent--not for one's good looks! It's like having a doctor saying "I'm going to work for this hospital but I'm NOT going to give it my best effort because I don't own it. I'm just going to do the minimum until I start my private practice!" THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE and STUPIDITY!" and it is one of the reasons why we get so much regurgitation from "The Big Two".

My argument has always been for creators to be paid a decent page rate and those who demonstrated creativity and loyalty to a company would be hired as a full staff member (and not just as a life-long freelancer) with benefits like a straight salary and vacations--perhaps even medical benefits. Just like with most companies outside of the world of comics or even those like the publisher's secretary or some of the editors. That's what the main problem has always been--that the companies always saw the people who produced work for them as FREELANCERS and not EMPLOYEES.

No one was being "exploited" in those days in the sense that they didn't own what they created. Most of these creators KNEW (or should have known) they were creating material for the company in which they worked--they obviously weren't pulling out any FICA or paying property tax on the building where they had to turn in their work!

Early on in the comics industry, DC (National) was more like a publisher who bought material from comic book shops (Studios like Iger & Eisner)
or brokered deals with individual creators (who maintained their own studio\shops) but they moved away from this by the Mid-40s after the merger with All-American Comics (see Volume One of Mark Evanier's JACK KIRBY: KING OF COMICS); on the other hand, Marvel (Timely) pretty much was always a company-owned business even if they got a little sloppy and inconsistent in the immediate period after Goodman sold the company. But Marvel was never really a "publisher" in the Simon & Shuster sense where creaors owned their own material until they formed their "Epic" label.

But as for this crap about "holding back ideas"? Well, if a creator is truly as imaginative as they like to think they are--then surely they can create characters for Marvel or DC for a while before they can take all of the FREE PUBLICITY which has been given to this creator--which will aid them if he or she decides to go "independent"-- and use it to start their own label. But if they want to "hold back ideas"--perhaps DC and Marvel should "hold back" the PAYCHECKS or stop HIRING THEM!

[transvestitegod]

I am a supporter of Indie comics and creators because I just think you get a greater variety of product that way. However what sometimes really annoys me is when a creator who chooses to work for The Big Comic Companies says stupid stuff like "I don't want to create anything for DC or Marvel because I don't want them to make a movie out of it!" That simply is nonsense, the reason why these companies hired you in the first place was for your creativity and talent--not for one's good looks! It's like having a doctor saying "I'm going to work for this hospital but I'm NOT going to give it my best effort because I don't own it. I'm just going to do the minimum until I start my private practice!" THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE and STUPIDITY!" and it is one of the reasons why we get so much regurgitation from "The Big Two".

There is no logic in your analogy. Comic books don't exist to (explicitly) save and nurture a human being's life. The decision to refrain from creating original characters for Marvel/DC is a righteous one, as they have never shown true respect for these people's creativity and talent.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

There is no logic in your analogy. Comic books don't exist to (explicitly) save and nurture a human being's life. The decision to refrain from creating original characters for Marvel/DC is a righteous one, as they have never shown true respect for these people's creativity and talent.

There is no logic in the analogy when one tries to ignore the analogy outright. In most cases, I would say THE MAJORITY of them, doctors are PAID to "nurture" the sick. Unless of course they live in a country where the physician is given free room and board and provided with a vehicle they can use to make house calls. Oh, and I suppose the MILLION DOLLARS Todd McFarlane earned in royalties for making SPIDER-MAN, a character with an established audience, a best selling book once again, was an expression of contempt and disrespect in your eyes?

Todd has talked about this. He didn't leave Spidey because he wasn't making good money, nor the fact that he didn't own Venom. He just didn't like the way a toadie at Marvel showed him a toy based on "one of his characters" and basically rubbed his nose in the fact that he wouldn't get anything for it. That's the kind of legitimate contempt that has sometimes reared its ugly head in this business.The scene in Clowes' series "YOUNG DAN PUSSEY" where an editor made a creator kiss his foot to get an assignment, is supposedly based on a true story. But there are "a-holes" in EVERY industry somewhere--some pint-sized dictator who wants to flex his or her muscles because they managed to worm their way into a position of power. That's something I definitely don't support!

[timeismoney]

I think the big two are well aware of the image they have now, but people act like they don't know what work for hire is.

Look at a guy like ED he has did his own thing and it is great, but also said they Marvel never made him do anything he didn't want to.

And lets see how long this industry last without Marvel or DC. Hell and some of the things that have been said about indi company isn't much better.

[Congo Jack]

This was a really great interview/discussion, thanks.

[Deep_Sleeper]

I am deeply thankful for creators like Kirkman, Millar and Niles. I haven't read anything of Niles, but Kirkman's Invincible and Walking Dead are two comics that I will continue to read as long as Kirkman is writing them. Of course, I bless the stars for Mark Millar. If there was ever an energizer bunny of the comic industry, it's Millar. He just packs so much energy into his books that you can't help but fall in love with them. Can't wait to read Jupiter's Children, Mark.

That was a great interview. I love getting the views and opinions of creators. It's very intriguing to read about what they think or what they feel should be the way.

[VicDiGital]

The main question I had when I was reading the article was about "new" characters, so I'm glad it's one of the primary discussion points others are bringing up here. As far as "holding back", it's two completely different things we're talking about here. If you're a writer or artist, and you're working on X-men, and you have a great idea for a new character, I think it's not just acceptable, but WISE to hold that character back for yourself. You'll never get an extra penny if that character goes on to massive popularity (or at least you won't get as much). At this stage, Marvel and DC have THOUSANDS of characters in their database, so many that they can use and revamp and reboot those existing characters and never NEED to create new characters or even care that creators aren't coming up with the next amazing character. And really, now that we are fully in the movie/TV cartoon adaptation era, it makes far more sense to utilize characters you've already created and getting them in the mix.

But like was said at the end of the roundtable, there will never be another Watchmen or Elektra or Lobo or Deadpool in DC or Marvel. I don't read mainstream stuff from the Big Two, but I still follow the storylines and keep track of what's going on, and I can't remember the last truly NEW character that was created and hit it big. Maybe Bane, or Doomsday. I wouldn't call Hush a megapopular character, but you at least see toys and statues of him. The only "new" characters that hit it big anymore seem to be new takes on old characters. Winter Soldier, Red Robin, all the Lantern color corps, Hulk family and spinoff characters, Future Foundation, Talon, Batman Inc, Phoenix Five, etc. It seems that the best creators have no problem coming up with great takes on old characters and infusing them with as much creativity as if they were original creations.

In the end, creativity is creativity, whether it's coming up with original ideas, or working on someone else's product (be it comic books, movies, advertising, or whatever). As a creator myself (although not of comics), I go into every project whether it's my own creation or someone else's giving it my all. My entire professional self-worth is based on the fact that whatever the challenge is, either original creation or work-for-hire, that I expect my creativity to rise up and knock it out of the park. In fact, I think it sometimes takes more impressive creativity to come up with a new take on an old character or idea. Best case in point- Watchmen. Watchmen wasn't a 'from scratch' original creation. It was a fantastic take on the Charlton characters first, then those were then turned into the characters we know and love today. If DC had decided to follow through on keeping them Charlton characters, we'd still today be talking about that comic today and what Alan Moore did with Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, The Question, and the rest.

Great discussion and roundtable and I can't wait for part two. This discussion is really about the future of creativity itself (and the distribution/monetization of it). We're close to the tipping point. DC just did the New 52, and Marvel is also getting ready to basically relaunch their entire line, so I think that pretty much signals that the end of "New" is near. "Original" will be the exclusive realm of creator-owned while "new versions" will be DC and Marvel's mandate.

[JoeStPierre]

I liked this article--

I think Steve Niles and Robert Kirkman hit it on the head when they discussed the idea that regular, consistent quality product is what appeals to the comic shop fan. Spider-Man is as iconic as he is today because there was a steady 125+ issues of consistent, quality stories. The extra-media attention draws almost exclusively from that material.

As a comics creator myself, I would also like to see interviews with comics creators who make a living strictly from their comics only;)

thanks

Joe
www.astronautink.com

[Paul Render]

Great article/interviews. Honestly I don't think any other writer or artist could make more valid points then these three already have. It's the bold truth.

And to the first poster in this thread, sorry buddy but you're commenting out of ignorance. You'd feel differently if you created a fresh new character/concept for Marvel/DC and then it blow up and you see no money from that. That's how it is right now, it's unfortunate, but its the truth.

[Trey]

Great article/interviews. Honestly I don't think any other writer or artist could make more valid points then these three already have. It's the bold truth.

And to the first poster in this thread, sorry buddy but you're commenting out of ignorance. You'd feel differently if you created a fresh new character/concept for Marvel/DC and then it blow up and you see no money from that. That's how it is right now, it's unfortunate, but its the truth.

So what?

There are tons of people that work for companies, that create things, but don't own them.

Like maybe, in advertising? or film design? Or video game design? Scientists, automobile designers/engineers, on and on.

DO you think the guy that came up with the Chicago Bulls logo is owed money from all the t-shorts sold?

O the Alien designer, HR Giger, did he get "extra" money from the use of his creation? It blew up into all kinds of merch, print, vidoe, games, toys, etc. Should he have?

[transvestitegod]

So what?

There are tons of people that work for companies, that create things, but don't own them.

Like maybe, in advertising? or film design? Or video game design? Scientists, automobile designers/engineers, on and on.

DO you think the guy that came up with the Chicago Bulls logo is owed money from all the t-shorts sold?

O the Alien designer, HR Giger, did he get "extra" money from the use of his creation? It blew up into all kinds of merch, print, vidoe, games, toys, etc. Should he have?

Advertisers don't own anything because they are creating derivative works of the product. The video game/automobile designers are just crew members. They have no right to the product just like the cameramen on the set of Inception have no right to own that movie.

Ugh, I can't believe this kind of thinking exists. It has to only be in comic fandom.

Edit: Good lord, you have a Batman icon. You're truly lost.

[Trey]

Advertisers don't own anything because they are creating derivative works of the product. The video game/automobile designers are just crew members. They have no right to the product just like the cameramen on the set of Inception have no right to own that movie.

Ugh, I can't believe this kind of thinking exists. It has to only be in comic fandom.

Edit: Good lord, you have a Batman icon. You're truly lost.

no, they are artists and creators working for companies. Pencillers are just crew members. Writers are just crew members.

I see you chose not to answer my two hypothetical questions.

Why should Jeph Loeb own the rights to Red Hulk?

[transvestitegod]

no, they are artists and creators working for companies. Pencillers are just crew members. Writers are just crew members.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying pencillers and writers aren't artists that work for companies?

I see you chose not to answer my two hypothetical questions.

H.G. Giger didn't come up with Alien; he was hired to help the vision along; crew member; he has no right to own anything. The designers of the Chicago Bulls Logo didn't create the Chicago Bulls.; they were hired to give the team a symbol; "crew members"; they have no right to own anything.

Why should Jeph Loeb own the rights to Red Hulk?

He shouldn't. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, either.

[transvestitegod]

There is no logic in the analogy when one tries to ignore the analogy outright. In most cases, I would say THE MAJORITY of them, doctors are PAID to "nurture" the sick. Unless of course they live in a country where the physician is given free room and board and provided with a vehicle they can use to make house calls.

That's irrelevant. The fact is, a creator who morally opposes giving their all for a company known for exploiting it's workers is a universe away from a doctor who'd refuse to operate at full skill when seeing a patient, because one involves art, the other involves a human life.

Oh, and I suppose the MILLION DOLLARS Todd McFarlane earned in royalties for making SPIDER-MAN, a character with an established audience, a best selling book once again, was an expression of contempt and disrespect in your eyes?

No, respecting someone's creativity and talent is only sub-partially related to much you pay them, or would pay them. Alan Moore was offered tons of money for the Watchmen movie, but simply making it was disrespectful because he'd expressed his contempt.