I was in the LCS and the conversation mentioned that another version of the Green Goblin was going to appear. I questioned why there were no new villains and the guy behind the counter said that it was all money. According to him new villains and characters aren't really being created because the comic book writers are blocked by the comic book companies because if they do create a new character and it goes on to become a good selling one and gets into a movie or something like that the company doesn't want to pay the the creator the money. Is that one of the reasons that we see endless recycles and retcons of villains?
Views: 762
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
I wouldn't say the comic book writers are blocked by the comic book companies. But any writer can see that any character, no matter how minor, can become the basis of a multimillion-dollar franchise. Look at Blade or Ghost Rider or Howard the Duck. All have been the subject of litigation by their creators (respectively, Marv Wolfman, Gary Friedrich, and Steve Gerber). All of them lost. Who would create a new character that makes millions of dollars for everyone but you?
But isn't that part of the deal when you take the job? The guy who helps build the house gets paid, but he doesn't get paid as much as the man who pays him to build the house and then sells the house. If you know that going in shouldn't it be something you live with?
There was some question in the writer's minds about ownership: some of them asserted that they hadn't signed away all ownership when they performed work for hire. Hence the lawsuits, which didn't go well for the creators. So now a writer knows that they won't get an ownership interest in a new character unless the company agrees to it beforehand. Since most comic book companies don't want to do that, there's little inducement for a writer to create a new character that might become a hit. They get paid to write stories, and they can do that with existing characters. Of course in the long term fresh characters should translate to more money for both the creator and the publisher, but the comic book industry has never been known for long term thinking (if anything that's gotten worse recently).
Exactly. The deal is for the writer to write stories. The deal isn't necessarily for the writer to create new characters. The comics companies could agree that the creators own all or a substantial share of new characters beforehand, which would be an incentive for the creators to create new characters -- but they don't.
Contemporary creators do create new characters. Recentish ones who leap to mind include Larfleeze and Mr Terrific, both of whom have been tried out in their own titles. The Winter Soldier was effectively a new creation, and has just appeared in a movie. The Court of Owls was recently introduced in "Batman".
It's one thing to create a new character, and another to create a really inspired new character. Maybe many contemporary creators just aren't up to the task of creating really inspired, ground-breaking new characters. Maybe many readers don't particularly have a need for them, because they like enough of what Marvel and/or DC are currently doing.
How does one tell that a character is inspired? Perhaps, the comics are good, and the character's title is successful. A title has to succeed commercially with an audience, and the 1965 audience doesn't exist any longer. The 2014 audience is a fan audience, and one way to appeal to it is to do new twists on established features and ideas. One suspects that's also what interests many creators.
When a new character is introduced into a team book, readers get the best of both worlds. They can read about old favourites and a new face by buying the one title.
Any creator who has a terrific idea for a superhero that is wholly original and a sure-fire mega-hit is free to take it to one of the small companies.
Still I would like to see some new exciting characters than the latest edition of the Green Goblin. I'll admit the 1965 audience isn't there anymore, but the 1965 prices aren't there either and the guy behind the counter mentioned that he thought we'd be seeing a standard 3.99 or 4.99 price soon. For that amount of money per issue I'd like to see something besides the Joker's 5999999 plot against Batman. I know that, as the guy said, it puts people in the seats, meaning that it sells, but it shows a lack of originality and creativity on the writers part, or at least that those aspects of their work is being held back. And since they make a big deal about putting the authors name on the outside of the book now it's easier to spot writers who I don't think are giving it their all and avoid them.
Of course in the long term fresh characters should translate to more money for both the creator and the publisher, but the comic book industry has never been known for long term thinking (if anything that's gotten worse recently).
I said on another thread recently that the mindset today in the comics industry and in all other stockholder- owned businesses is to take the money and run. Someone responded that getting paid was the objective. I guess I should have clarified that there is a difference between doing a good job and getting paid for it and strip-mining the properties so that they have ever-diminishing value. If the writers, artists, editors, publishers, and CEOs only care about this month's bottom line then it will ultimately destroy what we all love.
The Big Two have little incentive to allow creator ownership as long as the fans continue to buy the 599,999th appearance of the Joker et al. As has been said by others on the Round Table, if you aren't enjoying a comic don't buy it.
Obviously, the thing today is to take your original, wonderful concept to a company which will take the risk* of publishing it while allowing you to retain ownership.
* Chances are, however, you will have to establish a rep with the Big Two before the small companies will take such a risk.
One of the things Don Rosa wrote in his explanation of his retirement was that he'd had opportunities to create a feature of his own but didn't want to. His preference was to create stories about characters he'd loved all his life. Apparently, some people's minds just work that way.
John Byrne has created new characters in different parts of his career, but I think his mind might have worked the same way to an extent. He's very negative about his time on Alpha Flight, saying the characters lacked depth, but I think it was better than his FF work.
Some creators are very clever at putting twists on established ideas, but seem to need something established as a starting point. Alan Moore has often preferred to work that way, although he's also created wholly new features at other times (e.g. V for Vendetta, D.R. and Quinch). Steve Englehart had more success with established characters than with his own creations. [Edit: This is arguably not so, as The Night Man, which he created for Malibu, was turned into a TV series.]
Also, as with heroes, so with villains, it's one thing to create a new character, and another thing to create a really good one. The alternative to reusing the Joker might be pitting Batman against the Dormitive Man. The writer might think he's up to the challenge of telling a good, new Joker story. Alternatively, if he brings back a dullish Batman villain instead of creating one of his own, say Calendar Man, the story will at least have a grudge match element.
Sometimes writers take an established, mediocre character, and turn him/her into something special. John Dunbar reviewed the new She-Hulk series positively here. By the sounds of things its approach builds on that of Dan Slott's version, which built on John Byrne's, which built on Roger Stern's in TheAvengers. The modern success of the X-books is largely due to what Chris Claremont, Dave Cockrum and John Byrne did with characters created by Len Wein and Dave Cockrum (and John Romita, in the case of Wolverine) building on a feature created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
But all of that said: new characters and features still get introduced all the time. I don't know what DC's current arrangements are, but a few years ago it did have payment arrangements for use of new characters in other media (Chuck Dixon wrote about it on his message board). Creating a new Bat-villain is probably lucrative. S/he might potentially be used in a movie or on TV, and what else are you going to do with the idea?
I think another aspect of this (somewhat discussed earlier) is that comic creators are holding back their new characters and concepts. Why? Because they can get a better deal at Dark Horse, Image or any number of creator-friendly publishers.
Marvel and DC don't have the stranglehold on publishing outlets anymore, so why bring your A-game to them? Creators know they can go elsewhere and have complete ownership and editorial control over their best stuff. They use Marvel and DC to get noticed, then work on their own creations in hopes of cashing in.
The problem, especially with superheroes, is that Marvel and DC really do have the stranglehold on that particular genre -- at least in print. It's pretty difficult to get a foothold in that market, and then get noticed by Hollywood. But if you have a sci-fi, fantasy or horror concept? Go indie!
Replies
I wouldn't say the comic book writers are blocked by the comic book companies. But any writer can see that any character, no matter how minor, can become the basis of a multimillion-dollar franchise. Look at Blade or Ghost Rider or Howard the Duck. All have been the subject of litigation by their creators (respectively, Marv Wolfman, Gary Friedrich, and Steve Gerber). All of them lost. Who would create a new character that makes millions of dollars for everyone but you?
But isn't that part of the deal when you take the job? The guy who helps build the house gets paid, but he doesn't get paid as much as the man who pays him to build the house and then sells the house. If you know that going in shouldn't it be something you live with?
There was some question in the writer's minds about ownership: some of them asserted that they hadn't signed away all ownership when they performed work for hire. Hence the lawsuits, which didn't go well for the creators. So now a writer knows that they won't get an ownership interest in a new character unless the company agrees to it beforehand. Since most comic book companies don't want to do that, there's little inducement for a writer to create a new character that might become a hit. They get paid to write stories, and they can do that with existing characters. Of course in the long term fresh characters should translate to more money for both the creator and the publisher, but the comic book industry has never been known for long term thinking (if anything that's gotten worse recently).
Exactly. The deal is for the writer to write stories. The deal isn't necessarily for the writer to create new characters. The comics companies could agree that the creators own all or a substantial share of new characters beforehand, which would be an incentive for the creators to create new characters -- but they don't.
Contemporary creators do create new characters. Recentish ones who leap to mind include Larfleeze and Mr Terrific, both of whom have been tried out in their own titles. The Winter Soldier was effectively a new creation, and has just appeared in a movie. The Court of Owls was recently introduced in "Batman".
It's one thing to create a new character, and another to create a really inspired new character. Maybe many contemporary creators just aren't up to the task of creating really inspired, ground-breaking new characters. Maybe many readers don't particularly have a need for them, because they like enough of what Marvel and/or DC are currently doing.
How does one tell that a character is inspired? Perhaps, the comics are good, and the character's title is successful. A title has to succeed commercially with an audience, and the 1965 audience doesn't exist any longer. The 2014 audience is a fan audience, and one way to appeal to it is to do new twists on established features and ideas. One suspects that's also what interests many creators.
When a new character is introduced into a team book, readers get the best of both worlds. They can read about old favourites and a new face by buying the one title.
Any creator who has a terrific idea for a superhero that is wholly original and a sure-fire mega-hit is free to take it to one of the small companies.
Still I would like to see some new exciting characters than the latest edition of the Green Goblin. I'll admit the 1965 audience isn't there anymore, but the 1965 prices aren't there either and the guy behind the counter mentioned that he thought we'd be seeing a standard 3.99 or 4.99 price soon. For that amount of money per issue I'd like to see something besides the Joker's 5999999 plot against Batman. I know that, as the guy said, it puts people in the seats, meaning that it sells, but it shows a lack of originality and creativity on the writers part, or at least that those aspects of their work is being held back. And since they make a big deal about putting the authors name on the outside of the book now it's easier to spot writers who I don't think are giving it their all and avoid them.
Mark Sullivan (Vertiginous Mod) said:
Of course in the long term fresh characters should translate to more money for both the creator and the publisher, but the comic book industry has never been known for long term thinking (if anything that's gotten worse recently).
I said on another thread recently that the mindset today in the comics industry and in all other stockholder- owned businesses is to take the money and run. Someone responded that getting paid was the objective. I guess I should have clarified that there is a difference between doing a good job and getting paid for it and strip-mining the properties so that they have ever-diminishing value. If the writers, artists, editors, publishers, and CEOs only care about this month's bottom line then it will ultimately destroy what we all love.
The Big Two have little incentive to allow creator ownership as long as the fans continue to buy the 599,999th appearance of the Joker et al. As has been said by others on the Round Table, if you aren't enjoying a comic don't buy it.
Obviously, the thing today is to take your original, wonderful concept to a company which will take the risk* of publishing it while allowing you to retain ownership.
* Chances are, however, you will have to establish a rep with the Big Two before the small companies will take such a risk.
One of the things Don Rosa wrote in his explanation of his retirement was that he'd had opportunities to create a feature of his own but didn't want to. His preference was to create stories about characters he'd loved all his life. Apparently, some people's minds just work that way.
John Byrne has created new characters in different parts of his career, but I think his mind might have worked the same way to an extent. He's very negative about his time on Alpha Flight, saying the characters lacked depth, but I think it was better than his FF work.
Some creators are very clever at putting twists on established ideas, but seem to need something established as a starting point. Alan Moore has often preferred to work that way, although he's also created wholly new features at other times (e.g. V for Vendetta, D.R. and Quinch). Steve Englehart had more success with established characters than with his own creations. [Edit: This is arguably not so, as The Night Man, which he created for Malibu, was turned into a TV series.]
Also, as with heroes, so with villains, it's one thing to create a new character, and another thing to create a really good one. The alternative to reusing the Joker might be pitting Batman against the Dormitive Man. The writer might think he's up to the challenge of telling a good, new Joker story. Alternatively, if he brings back a dullish Batman villain instead of creating one of his own, say Calendar Man, the story will at least have a grudge match element.
Sometimes writers take an established, mediocre character, and turn him/her into something special. John Dunbar reviewed the new She-Hulk series positively here. By the sounds of things its approach builds on that of Dan Slott's version, which built on John Byrne's, which built on Roger Stern's in The Avengers. The modern success of the X-books is largely due to what Chris Claremont, Dave Cockrum and John Byrne did with characters created by Len Wein and Dave Cockrum (and John Romita, in the case of Wolverine) building on a feature created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
But all of that said: new characters and features still get introduced all the time. I don't know what DC's current arrangements are, but a few years ago it did have payment arrangements for use of new characters in other media (Chuck Dixon wrote about it on his message board). Creating a new Bat-villain is probably lucrative. S/he might potentially be used in a movie or on TV, and what else are you going to do with the idea?
I think another aspect of this (somewhat discussed earlier) is that comic creators are holding back their new characters and concepts. Why? Because they can get a better deal at Dark Horse, Image or any number of creator-friendly publishers.
Marvel and DC don't have the stranglehold on publishing outlets anymore, so why bring your A-game to them? Creators know they can go elsewhere and have complete ownership and editorial control over their best stuff. They use Marvel and DC to get noticed, then work on their own creations in hopes of cashing in.
The problem, especially with superheroes, is that Marvel and DC really do have the stranglehold on that particular genre -- at least in print. It's pretty difficult to get a foothold in that market, and then get noticed by Hollywood. But if you have a sci-fi, fantasy or horror concept? Go indie!
If you take a job you should do your best at that job, doesn't matter if you like it or not. Take it, do it or don't take it.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next