|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 1, 2015 12:14:31 GMT -5
One reason to create a substitute is you'll own the intellectual property. I have a feeling creators who are confident in their work would rather be the next Robert Kirkman than the next whoever is drawing whatever public domain comic at Dynamite. It depends on what you want to do. League of Extraordinary Gentleman doesn't work, even if you use generic archetypes in place of the the actual public domain characters. Obviously few people are Alan Moore. But that's the thing. The current copyright laws lock up the sandbox. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Apr 1, 2015 12:42:03 GMT -5
One reason to create a substitute is you'll own the intellectual property. I have a feeling creators who are confident in their work would rather be the next Robert Kirkman than the next whoever is drawing whatever public domain comic at Dynamite. From a business standpoint that's certainly true, but from a storytelling standpoint that doesn't mean much. You don't need ownership to tell an entertaining story, and ownership isn't the goal or every writer or artists, even the ones who are confident in their craft. Slam brings up Sturgeon's Law, which sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon referred to as his revelation in defending the merits of science fiction as a genre, which was what I was evoking with my argument but to your new point I bring up what Sturgeon actually referred to as "Sturgeon's Law" which is this, "Nothing is always absolutely so.". As I said, there are no doubt many writers and artists who choose shun work at the big two to endeavor to create their own material because ownership and the profit that comes with that are important to them, and good for them; that's their decision and only they can decide what's right for them and it has lead to many great stories. But by the same token there are just as many writers and artists who choose to work for the big two and use established characters to tell their stories and that's just a good for them as it's equally their decision and only then can know what's right for them...and that too has lead to many great stories. And further, just because some artists and writers choose the later rather than the former doesn't mean they aren't confident enough or talented enough to decide to follow a path that is less secure than the first option. Are there there undoubtedly some that aren't talented or confident enough to take the risks? Certainly, but at the same point there are undoubtedly an equal number on the other side of the fence that do not posses the skills or confidence to work at the big two. Neither side of the coin is all that unique, in fact they really aren't on opposite sides at all; they are both simply story tellers and some have made different choices than others and there's no real, inherent better or worse decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:40:12 GMT -5
One reason to create a substitute is you'll own the intellectual property. I have a feeling creators who are confident in their work would rather be the next Robert Kirkman than the next whoever is drawing whatever public domain comic at Dynamite. From a business standpoint that's certainly true, but from a storytelling standpoint that doesn't mean much. You don't need ownership to tell an entertaining story, and ownership isn't the goal or every writer or artists, even the ones who are confident in their craft. Slam brings up Sturgeon's Law, which sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon referred to his revelation in defending the merits of science fiction as a genre, which was what I was evoking with my argument but to your new point I bring up what Sturgeon actually referred to as "Sturgeon's Law" which is this, "Nothing is always absolutely so.". As I said, there are no doubt many writers and artists who choose shun work at the big two to endeavor to create their own material because ownership and the profit that comes with that are important to them, and good for them; that's their decision and only they can decide what's right for them and it has lead to many great stories. But by the same token there are just as many writers and artists who choose to work for the big two and use established characters to tell their stories and that's just a good for them as it's equally their decision and only then can know what's right for them...and that too has lead to many great stories. And further, just because some artists and writers choose the later rather than the former doesn't mean they aren't confident enough or talented enough to decide to follow a path that is less secure than the first option. Are there there undoubtedly some that aren't talented or confident enough to take the risks? Certainly, but at the same point there are undoubtedly an equal number on the other side of the fence that do not posses the skills or confidence to work at the big two. Neither side of the coin is all that unique, in fact they really aren't on opposite sides at all; they are both simply story tellers and some have made different choices than others and there's no real, inherent better or worse decision. Yeah that Michelangelo dude was a talentless hack because he used other people's characters in his paintings and sculptures you know....so was Sir Thomas Mallory, and Milton..Paradise Lost was just derivative of other stories with those characters wasn't it.... the grand history of art and literature has included the idea of tapping into common cultural elements as part of the artistic expression. Some artists want to tap into that..including comic creators who work for properties still owned by the big 2. Some don't. There's very little that is original in the world, however there is a great many things that are innovative, even if they use familiar characters, tropes, stories, etc. Innovative work does not have to feature completely new characters-some work featuring completely new characters is totally derivative, so new creations does not guarantee the work is innovative. Sometimes something innovative comes out of something derivative-The Turtles started as a parody of Miller's Ronin-nothing is more derivative than a parody of someone else's work, but what emerged was an innovative story and set of characters. Innovation comes for the craft and talent in the creative process, not necessarily from the subject matter. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 19:17:48 GMT -5
One reason to create a substitute is you'll own the intellectual property. I have a feeling creators who are confident in their work would rather be the next Robert Kirkman than the next whoever is drawing whatever public domain comic at Dynamite. From a business standpoint that's certainly true, but from a storytelling standpoint that doesn't mean much. You don't need ownership to tell an entertaining story, and ownership isn't the goal or every writer or artists, even the ones who are confident in their craft. Slam brings up Sturgeon's Law, which sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon referred to as his revelation in defending the merits of science fiction as a genre, which was what I was evoking with my argument but to your new point I bring up what Sturgeon actually referred to as "Sturgeon's Law" which is this, "Nothing is always absolutely so.". As I said, there are no doubt many writers and artists who choose shun work at the big two to endeavor to create their own material because ownership and the profit that comes with that are important to them, and good for them; that's their decision and only they can decide what's right for them and it has lead to many great stories. But by the same token there are just as many writers and artists who choose to work for the big two and use established characters to tell their stories and that's just a good for them as it's equally their decision and only then can know what's right for them...and that too has lead to many great stories. And further, just because some artists and writers choose the later rather than the former doesn't mean they aren't confident enough or talented enough to decide to follow a path that is less secure than the first option. Are there there undoubtedly some that aren't talented or confident enough to take the risks? Certainly, but at the same point there are undoubtedly an equal number on the other side of the fence that do not posses the skills or confidence to work at the big two. Neither side of the coin is all that unique, in fact they really aren't on opposite sides at all; they are both simply story tellers and some have made different choices than others and there's no real, inherent better or worse decision. I don't think the people who choose to work on safe properties owned by corporations are doing so because they love those properties so much that there's nothing they'd rather do, but because they need the built in audience safe properties provide because their work is less likely to stand up on it's own. Moore would be one of very few exceptions to that suspicion, since working with those properties always ended up being a nightmare for him. But even in his case, there's no denying his work with big license characters has a broader fanbase than his work without. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 19:20:52 GMT -5
Yeah that Michelangelo dude was a talentless hack because he used other people's characters in his paintings and sculptures you know....so was Sir Thomas Mallory, and Milton..Paradise Lost was just derivative of other stories with those characters wasn't it.... Pretty sure he was doing commissions. And at the time there was pretty much only one paying customer and only one thing they wanted commissions of. There's no denying his technical mastery, but it's not really comparable to today when someone could pioneer a new art movement expressing themselves any way they see fit and still manage to pay the bills and not get burned at the stake for it or anything. I mean it's almost as if society was different half a millennium ago and half a world away. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Apr 1, 2015 19:47:29 GMT -5
From a business standpoint that's certainly true, but from a storytelling standpoint that doesn't mean much. You don't need ownership to tell an entertaining story, and ownership isn't the goal or every writer or artists, even the ones who are confident in their craft. Slam brings up Sturgeon's Law, which sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon referred to as his revelation in defending the merits of science fiction as a genre, which was what I was evoking with my argument but to your new point I bring up what Sturgeon actually referred to as "Sturgeon's Law" which is this, "Nothing is always absolutely so.". As I said, there are no doubt many writers and artists who choose shun work at the big two to endeavor to create their own material because ownership and the profit that comes with that are important to them, and good for them; that's their decision and only they can decide what's right for them and it has lead to many great stories. But by the same token there are just as many writers and artists who choose to work for the big two and use established characters to tell their stories and that's just a good for them as it's equally their decision and only then can know what's right for them...and that too has lead to many great stories. And further, just because some artists and writers choose the later rather than the former doesn't mean they aren't confident enough or talented enough to decide to follow a path that is less secure than the first option. Are there there undoubtedly some that aren't talented or confident enough to take the risks? Certainly, but at the same point there are undoubtedly an equal number on the other side of the fence that do not posses the skills or confidence to work at the big two. Neither side of the coin is all that unique, in fact they really aren't on opposite sides at all; they are both simply story tellers and some have made different choices than others and there's no real, inherent better or worse decision. I don't think the people who choose to work on safe properties owned by corporations are doing so because they love those properties so much that there's nothing they'd rather do, but because they need the built in audience safe properties provide because their work is less likely to stand up on it's own. Moore would be one of very few exceptions to that suspicion, since working with those properties always ended up being a nightmare for him. But even in his case, there's no denying his work with big license characters has a broader fanbase than his work without. That doesn't seem anywhere near the case, especially not these days as writers and artists seem to regularly bounce between doing their own stuff(and being pretty darn successful) and working at the big two with superheroes. And again, there is lot of passion for the characters from a lot of the people working on them, are there people there just for the check? Sure, but that's true of any job not just comics so I don't think it's a flaw in superhero comics. As I quoted from Sturgeon earlier, "Nothing is absolutely so." and to me that's just something that is so easy to grasp that I just can't understand why you would think it was otherwise, I certainly haven't seen you put forward anything that would be point to the opposite being true. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 1, 2015 20:00:02 GMT -5
I think, without question, you have more people working in comics today that love comics. There are so many more options for commercial artists nowadays that you have to have some level of passion for it I think.* I do agree that many would probably rather be doing their own thing than working at Marvel or DC, but then again you have creators like Dan Slott who admits that he loves writing Spider-Man and that's all he ever really wanted to do. I think many simply would like to be doing more pulp-noir, fantasy and sci-fi, whether it's their stuff or not.
*With the possible exception of the early-to-mid 70's when the first major wave of fans-turned-pro started turning in some exceptional work. (Simonson, Byrne, Kaluta, Starlin, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 1, 2015 20:17:26 GMT -5
From a business standpoint that's certainly true, but from a storytelling standpoint that doesn't mean much. You don't need ownership to tell an entertaining story, and ownership isn't the goal or every writer or artists, even the ones who are confident in their craft. Slam brings up Sturgeon's Law, which sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon referred to as his revelation in defending the merits of science fiction as a genre, which was what I was evoking with my argument but to your new point I bring up what Sturgeon actually referred to as "Sturgeon's Law" which is this, "Nothing is always absolutely so.". As I said, there are no doubt many writers and artists who choose shun work at the big two to endeavor to create their own material because ownership and the profit that comes with that are important to them, and good for them; that's their decision and only they can decide what's right for them and it has lead to many great stories. But by the same token there are just as many writers and artists who choose to work for the big two and use established characters to tell their stories and that's just a good for them as it's equally their decision and only then can know what's right for them...and that too has lead to many great stories. And further, just because some artists and writers choose the later rather than the former doesn't mean they aren't confident enough or talented enough to decide to follow a path that is less secure than the first option. Are there there undoubtedly some that aren't talented or confident enough to take the risks? Certainly, but at the same point there are undoubtedly an equal number on the other side of the fence that do not posses the skills or confidence to work at the big two. Neither side of the coin is all that unique, in fact they really aren't on opposite sides at all; they are both simply story tellers and some have made different choices than others and there's no real, inherent better or worse decision. I don't think the people who choose to work on safe properties owned by corporations are doing so because they love those properties so much that there's nothing they'd rather do, but because they need the built in audience safe properties provide because their work is less likely to stand up on it's own. Moore would be one of very few exceptions to that suspicion, since working with those properties always ended up being a nightmare for him. But even in his case, there's no denying his work with big license characters has a broader fanbase than his work without. This is demonstrably wrong. That is if I'm reading you right. Which I'm not sure I am. Like his work or not, Geoff Johns is a very popular writer. Who appears to have absolutely zero interest in working on anything but established characters. Nothing is absolute. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 22:27:18 GMT -5
Justin Beiber is a very popular singer. Yes, some people bounce back and fourth. The man point in that is they were actually capable of being successful outside of popular licenses.
If you NEED the Superman license to tell your superhero story, I'd say you're not a good writer. You mention Moore and LoEG. You know something far more popular that he did? Watchmen. And what happened there? He didn't get the license he wanted, he managed without it, and it's pretty much his defining work. Now, if he weren't as good it would have been completely forgotten. But no matter how bad Maximum Carnage is, nobody is going to forget it, because Spiderman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 22:31:31 GMT -5
Also, the reliance on popular licenses to endure a built in audience is demonstrably fact. It's the sole existence of IDW and Dynamite. And although Marvel and DC own their IP rather than purchase licenses, they'd also be in a world of trouble without their heavy (almost exclusive) reliance on it. Those built in audiences are fact, and they are the main reason a writer today who doesn't have the chops to cut it on their own, or be hired by DC, would complain about not being able to use the licenses without paying for them. Because they need that built in audience. They're writing fanfic, not stories. And that's why they're different from those who created the IP that everyone wants. Also, in my experience, a licensed comic (or comic using public domain) is FAR more likely to be garbage than one that isn't. I'm talking entire publishers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 2, 2015 1:21:11 GMT -5
I don't think the people who choose to work on safe properties owned by corporations are doing so because they love those properties so much that there's nothing they'd rather do, but because they need the built in audience safe properties provide because their work is less likely to stand up on it's own. Moore would be one of very few exceptions to that suspicion, since working with those properties always ended up being a nightmare for him. But even in his case, there's no denying his work with big license characters has a broader fanbase than his work without. This is demonstrably wrong. That is if I'm reading you right. Which I'm not sure I am. Like his work or not, Geoff Johns is a very popular writer. Who appears to have absolutely zero interest in working on anything but established characters. Nothing is absolute. I get what he's saying, though. I doubt a Geoff Johns book featuring a superhero team of scientists lead by Sherlock Holmes would have much of a chance of being a success. Moore has earned his reputation as a great writer. He's one of the few creators that I really don't care what the subject matter is (Save for Lost Girls. Not my bag.) and usually gets my money simply on reputation as a substantial talent alone. I get the general sense that Johns is viewed more as a cool fanboy, with average talent, who likes to play with all of the most expensive toys. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 2:01:20 GMT -5
Johns did a couple of creator owned original shorts that appeared in the Metal Hurlant anthology book put out by Humaonids Press a little over a decade ago and I still think it was better than his mainstream super-hero stuff he was doing at the time. Also his training/background is in filmmaking (as an apprentice/assistant to Richard Donner) and not in comics writing, as much as a fan he is of the genre stuff.
-M
PS apparently the story by Johns called Redlight (with art by Christian Gossett of Red Star fame) was adapted into an episode of the Metal Hurlant Chronicles television show
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 2:36:10 GMT -5
This is demonstrably wrong. That is if I'm reading you right. Which I'm not sure I am. Like his work or not, Geoff Johns is a very popular writer. Who appears to have absolutely zero interest in working on anything but established characters. Nothing is absolute. I get what he's saying, though. I doubt a Geoff Johns book featuring a superhero team of scientists lead by Sherlock Holmes would have much of a chance of being a success. Or a superhero story featuring regular, cape wearing super powered musclemen, with different names and costumes than the ones we're all familiar with. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Apr 2, 2015 19:51:13 GMT -5
Justin Beiber is a very popular singer. Yes, some people bounce back and fourth. The man point in that is they were actually capable of being successful outside of popular licenses. If you NEED the Superman license to tell your superhero story, I'd say you're not a good writer. You mention Moore and LoEG. You know something far more popular that he did? Watchmen. And what happened there? He didn't get the license he wanted, he managed without it, and it's pretty much his defining work. Now, if he weren't as good it would have been completely forgotten. But no matter how bad Maximum Carnage is, nobody is going to forget it, because Spiderman. What about wanting to use Superman to tell your story? Take Action Comics #810 for instance, it's a great little story about how on new years eve Superman stops in on every time zone to ring in the new year by answering a fan letter or two from that area. It's nothing earth shattering I suppose, but it's a well told tale with a good message about how we should face the new year. Could Joe Kelly and Dave Bullock told it with a flying muscle man of their own making, or even sans superhero at all? Sure, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it all the same but they chose to make it a superman story because along with showing us an interesting way to embrace the new year it also shows us an interesting facet of Superman. And there's no intrinsic difference about an entertaining comic and an entertaining comic with Superman in it; they both achieve the same purpose. And for as much success as Kelly's had with both DC and Marvel he's produced some pretty great comics for Image such as I Kill Giants, Four Eyes and Douglas Fredericks and the House of They and he's also one of the creators of the wildly successful cartoon Ben 10 so not just someone with out the talent or drive to succeed out side of writing Superman stories. And it's not as if that's a singular example there are plenty like him that can do both, and do superhero stories because they choose to do superhero stories not because they have to. And Maxim Carnage will eventually be forgotten, heck for many it probably already has been forgotten or because they are new readers and its a story that is no longer popular they aren't even aware of it at all.There are many, many horrible superhero comics; and some of them are even popular for a time but eventually they are forgotten if they are not good. But again, this is true of any media so again I don't see the significance. Also, the reliance on popular licenses to endure a built in audience is demonstrably fact. It's the sole existence of IDW and Dynamite. And although Marvel and DC own their IP rather than purchase licenses, they'd also be in a world of trouble without their heavy (almost exclusive) reliance on it. Those built in audiences are fact, and they are the main reason a writer today who doesn't have the chops to cut it on their own, or be hired by DC, would complain about not being able to use the licenses without paying for them. Because they need that built in audience. They're writing fanfic, not stories. And that's why they're different from those who created the IP that everyone wants. Also, in my experience, a licensed comic (or comic using public domain) is FAR more likely to be garbage than one that isn't. I'm talking entire publishers. It is a fact, but it has been since time immemorial so it doesn't invalidate a story at all.  As the above cavemen sat around the fire on one cold, wintry night thousands of years ago, one grunted to the rest, "Remember Unk?" and the others said, "Of course, he brought food that time." and so the first continued, "Well...this is another of his adventures..."
Familiarity is a key way to draw in an audience and is a skill used by story tellers since the first story was told, so why should it be invalid, or considered to be lesser now?
As to your second part, I call total bs on that. There are just as many published comics that do not feature recognizable characters that are absolute shit as there are those with recognizable characters that were created by others. And I'm also talking about whole entire publishers as well. Like I said earlier, neither "side" is demonstrably better here, no matter what most content isn't that great. Walk into any book store and pick a rack from any genre you generally enjoy and I guarantee you that majority of the books on that rack are books you wouldn't bother spending you money on. And heck, even if money weren't an option and you could buy them all you still wouldn't say that a majority were good. And it's the same with anything else, film, music, clothes...you name it and the majority will not be to your liking and superhero comics are no different. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 2:39:56 GMT -5
Justin Beiber is a very popular singer. Yes, some people bounce back and fourth. The man point in that is they were actually capable of being successful outside of popular licenses. If you NEED the Superman license to tell your superhero story, I'd say you're not a good writer. You mention Moore and LoEG. You know something far more popular that he did? Watchmen. And what happened there? He didn't get the license he wanted, he managed without it, and it's pretty much his defining work. Now, if he weren't as good it would have been completely forgotten. But no matter how bad Maximum Carnage is, nobody is going to forget it, because Spiderman. What about wanting to use Superman to tell your story? Take Action Comics #810 for instance, it's a great little story about how on new years eve Superman stops in on every time zone to ring in the new year by answering a fan letter or two from that area. It's nothing earth shattering I suppose, but it's a well told tale with a good message about how we should face the new year. Could Joe Kelly and Dave Bullock told it with a flying muscle man of their own making, or even sans superhero at all? Sure, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it all the same but they chose to make it a superman story because along with showing us an interesting way to embrace the new year it also shows us an interesting facet of Superman. And there's no intrinsic difference about an entertaining comic and an entertaining comic with Superman in it; they both achieve the same purpose. And for as much success as Kelly's had with both DC and Marvel he's produced some pretty great comics for Image such as I Kill Giants, Four Eyes and Douglas Fredericks and the House of They and he's also one of the creators of the wildly successful cartoon Ben 10 so not just someone with out the talent or drive to succeed out side of writing Superman stories. Did they choose to tell a Superman tale or were they assigned the job? As far as just as many unlicensed comics being garbage, you're totally correct on that. They aren't consistently bestsellers though, which is the value of the license. You HAVE to tell a good story to actually make sales if you don't have a license, wither owned, leased, or through public domain, in order for it to sell. Now, are there people who work at DC who love Superman? Absolutely. Are there people who don't work at DC who would love to work on Superman? Absolutely. But I still maintain that a great storyteller can manage without the license if they don't have access to it, and I still suspect the aspiring professionals who feel robbed that they can't just make Superman and Mickey Mouse comics are actually more concerned with the built in audience those properties bring with them. Also, the only reason a license has value is because someone made that property great. Shax mentioned Sherlock Holmes. When we think Sherlock Holmes we think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Especially in his native format of prose. Now that Holmes is in the public domain there are plenty of TV shows and movies featuring him. But not all that many novels. Why not? Mystery thrillers are a hot genre. I think it's because readers wouldn't accept it. They don't care so much about the character as they did Doyle's writing. I'll only read an Ian Flemming Bond book. I'm a huge Robert Ludlum fan, and have read all of his books. I once or twice accidentally bought a Covert One novel because his name was plastered across the top, and then when I realized it was authored by someone else I didn't even read the first chapter, just gave it to Goodwill brand new and unread. Because I assume any author who takes second billing on the cover of his own book isn't going to be that great an author. You mention music. Would you rather see the band whose music you love, or a cover band inspired by the band who plays the music you love? |
|
