|
Post by rberman on Feb 11, 2018 0:25:14 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I have never been a fan of any of the Image guys. I have never gotten any Image until recently. It seemed like the worst of 90s excesses all concentrated in one place. But I have enjoyed Mark Millar's "Jupiter's Legacy/Jupiter's Circle" series with Frank Quitely and will probably write more about it here down the line.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 0:26:29 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I have never been a fan of any of the Image guys. Part of it was that they tended to run off at the mouth, while keeping their brains turned off, when they launched the whole thing. The other part was I never cared for any of their styles. Way to much linework and not enough attention to storytelling. Jim Lee was one of the few who thought before he spoke; but, he quickly showed he wasn't about creator's rights when he set up a studio to churn out stuff that he owned. I'm also not a fan of him as an executive at DC. Erik Larsen probably shot his mouth off more than the others (his infamous "Name Withheld" pieces at CBG); but, he mostly stuck to producing his own book and did so consistently and relatively on time. i give him props for that. He was also less derivative than the others (other than a visual design swiped from the Hulk and Abomination). I learned to ignore their stuff and they quieted down after a few years. I do have to say I have more respect for Jim Valentino keeping his connections to the alternative world and being instrumental in drawing some higher quality projects to Image. I think he did more than the rest to open the company up to more artistic content, setting them up for the diversity they have now. If and when I get around to Image, in the Other Guys thread, I am going to have a tough time being objective. I don't want to slag off things I don't like in the thread; but, there is plenty at Image I did and do like. Spawn isn't one of them. At the time the advanced marketing started for the first issue, I looked at the designs in CBG and said, "Grendel wants his mask back, Ghost Rider wants his chains, and Spectre and Spider-Man would like a word or two." Then, when the first issue came out, there was that horrendously bad writing. I could have gotten a third grade remedial class to come up with better material than that! Wasn't there also a baby in it, with a gigantic head, since Todd couldn't draw children to proper proportions? It was still better than Youngblood, though. Yeesh!!!!!!! Image necessarily became the secondary focus of my Wizard Magazine review thread, and as I learned more about the background of the company through that thread, I developed many more reasons not to respect them. I hope you'll consider consulting the thread before you do your write-ups on Image. It will give you legitimate reasons to hate 😉.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 11, 2018 3:24:27 GMT -5
I've mellowed on the creators, themselves; but, their material does nothing for me. They were a pretty easy target, back then. I never understood any love for Liefeld's work though; Kirby that's ugly! Karl kesel cleaned it up a ton, on Hawk and Dove. Someone should have given him a percentage of Liefeld's royalties. I actually liked Valentino's work, on Guardians of the Galaxy, and loved normalman. Lee's Deathblow made my head explode, rather like the movie Under Siege. He had a character who is supposed to be a Navy Seal, who is wearing eyeglasses (need 20/20 vision to even apply) and is wearing the "choker white" dress uniform, with shoulderboards and braiding on the cuffs (that uniform only has shoulderboards to indicate rank). Bad as that was, it was still better than one of Liefeld's WW2 German soldiers, in a brown uniform and silver helmet! Nice boy; but about as sharp as a sack of wet mash! (to quote the great Foghorn Leghorn!)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 11, 2018 3:57:19 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I have never been a fan of any of the Image guys. Part of it was that they tended to run off at the mouth, while keeping their brains turned off, when they launched the whole thing. The other part was I never cared for any of their styles. Way to much linework and not enough attention to storytelling. Jim Lee was one of the few who thought before he spoke; but, he quickly showed he wasn't about creator's rights when he set up a studio to churn out stuff that he owned. I'm also not a fan of him as an executive at DC. Erik Larsen probably shot his mouth off more than the others (his infamous "Name Withheld" pieces at CBG); but, he mostly stuck to producing his own book and did so consistently and relatively on time. i give him props for that. He was also less derivative than the others (other than a visual design swiped from the Hulk and Abomination). I learned to ignore their stuff and they quieted down after a few years. I do have to say I have more respect for Jim Valentino keeping his connections to the alternative world and being instrumental in drawing some higher quality projects to Image. I think he did more than the rest to open the company up to more artistic content, setting them up for the diversity they have now. If and when I get around to Image, in the Other Guys thread, I am going to have a tough time being objective. I don't want to slag off things I don't like in the thread; but, there is plenty at Image I did and do like. Spawn isn't one of them. At the time the advanced marketing started for the first issue, I looked at the designs in CBG and said, "Grendel wants his mask back, Ghost Rider wants his chains, and Spectre and Spider-Man would like a word or two." Then, when the first issue came out, there was that horrendously bad writing. I could have gotten a third grade remedial class to come up with better material than that! Wasn't there also a baby in it, with a gigantic head, since Todd couldn't draw children to proper proportions? It was still better than Youngblood, though. Yeesh!!!!!!! Image necessarily became the secondary focus of my Wizard Magazine review thread, and as I learned more about the background of the company through that thread, I developed many more reasons not to respect them. I hope you'll consider consulting the thread before you do your write-ups on Image. It will give you legitimate reasons to hate 😉. Ugly art and pompous attitudes were perfectly legitimate reasons! I tried Wizard for the first few issues but dumped it quickly. I was a CBG subscriber (and Starlog's Comic Scene) and was reading more and more of the Comics Journal and the constant husckstering and sophomoric humor really put me off. It did improve greatly later on and was more balanced. Still wouldn't read it regularly; but, I did sample it periodically, on my lunch hour (working in a bookstore I read it for free).
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Feb 11, 2018 4:00:22 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I have never been a fan of any of the Image guys. Part of it was that they tended to run off at the mouth, while keeping their brains turned off, when they launched the whole thing. The other part was I never cared for any of their styles. Way to much linework and not enough attention to storytelling. Jim Lee was one of the few who thought before he spoke; but, he quickly showed he wasn't about creator's rights when he set up a studio to churn out stuff that he owned. I'm also not a fan of him as an executive at DC. Erik Larsen probably shot his mouth off more than the others (his infamous "Name Withheld" pieces at CBG); but, he mostly stuck to producing his own book and did so consistently and relatively on time. i give him props for that. He was also less derivative than the others (other than a visual design swiped from the Hulk and Abomination). I learned to ignore their stuff and they quieted down after a few years. I do have to say I have more respect for Jim Valentino keeping his connections to the alternative world and being instrumental in drawing some higher quality projects to Image. I think he did more than the rest to open the company up to more artistic content, setting them up for the diversity they have now. If and when I get around to Image, in the Other Guys thread, I am going to have a tough time being objective. I don't want to slag off things I don't like in the thread; but, there is plenty at Image I did and do like. Spawn isn't one of them. At the time the advanced marketing started for the first issue, I looked at the designs in CBG and said, "Grendel wants his mask back, Ghost Rider wants his chains, and Spectre and Spider-Man would like a word or two." Then, when the first issue came out, there was that horrendously bad writing. I could have gotten a third grade remedial class to come up with better material than that! Wasn't there also a baby in it, with a gigantic head, since Todd couldn't draw children to proper proportions? It was still better than Youngblood, though. Yeesh!!!!!!! You're being quite reductive on Jim Lee's stance on creator rights: Wildstorm was his shared superhero universe, which would be work for hire with creative rights owned by the company, but unlike any other publisher at the time, he paid out royalties to all of the creative team on his books, including inkers, letterers and colourists. There was also room for creator-owned works like Kieth's The Maxx, though. Somewhat later, Homage Comics became his imprint for the creator owned series that were published by his studio.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 11, 2018 4:35:49 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I have never been a fan of any of the Image guys. Part of it was that they tended to run off at the mouth, while keeping their brains turned off, when they launched the whole thing. The other part was I never cared for any of their styles. Way to much linework and not enough attention to storytelling. Jim Lee was one of the few who thought before he spoke; but, he quickly showed he wasn't about creator's rights when he set up a studio to churn out stuff that he owned. I'm also not a fan of him as an executive at DC. Erik Larsen probably shot his mouth off more than the others (his infamous "Name Withheld" pieces at CBG); but, he mostly stuck to producing his own book and did so consistently and relatively on time. i give him props for that. He was also less derivative than the others (other than a visual design swiped from the Hulk and Abomination). I learned to ignore their stuff and they quieted down after a few years. I do have to say I have more respect for Jim Valentino keeping his connections to the alternative world and being instrumental in drawing some higher quality projects to Image. I think he did more than the rest to open the company up to more artistic content, setting them up for the diversity they have now. If and when I get around to Image, in the Other Guys thread, I am going to have a tough time being objective. I don't want to slag off things I don't like in the thread; but, there is plenty at Image I did and do like. Spawn isn't one of them. At the time the advanced marketing started for the first issue, I looked at the designs in CBG and said, "Grendel wants his mask back, Ghost Rider wants his chains, and Spectre and Spider-Man would like a word or two." Then, when the first issue came out, there was that horrendously bad writing. I could have gotten a third grade remedial class to come up with better material than that! Wasn't there also a baby in it, with a gigantic head, since Todd couldn't draw children to proper proportions? It was still better than Youngblood, though. Yeesh!!!!!!! You're being quite reductive on Jim Lee's stance on creator rights: Wildstorm was his shared superhero universe, which would be work for hire with creative rights owned by the company, but unlike any other publisher at the time, he paid out royalties to all of the creative team on his books, including inkers, letterers and colourists. There was also room for creator-owned works like Kieth's The Maxx, though. Somewhat later, Homage Comics became his imprint for the creator owned series that were published by his studio. Maybe; but, he was rather selective in who got those deals. When Image launched, they made noises that anyone who worked on an Image book shared in royalties and ownership and they quickly backpedaled on that. Lee had his own studio churning out material on a work-for-hire basis, as did Liefeld. Lee opened things up more later, with Homage; but, he came off more than a bit hypocritical, in the beginning. The Image member I respected the most; but, moreso later, was Jim Valentino. One, he was one of the guys who tended to speak more reasonably, in the early days; and, two, he was the real driving force in expanding their publishing by recruiting more distinct voices, when he took over as publisher. Larry Marder was a big factor, as well, and probably helped keep the whole thing from imploding, at the beginning, when they were missing deadlines left and right and being threatened with penalties, by Diamond and Capital. Shadow Hawk aside, Valentino tended to stick to his indie roots, which brought some artistic vision and critical acclaim to Image. It may not look it; but, I mellowed on Image, over the years, especially after guys like Liefeld and McFarlane faded into the woodwork and Larsen focused more on just producing Savage Dragon (not my cup of tea; but, he was consistently producing and it was readable and he experimented with it) and Lee pulled back to acting more as a publisher of material that I found to be better than his own. Valentino got a lot of his friends to sign up and I was reading more Image, thanks to Bone and A Distant Soil. They grew into a pretty decent line of books; but, if you look at what they did then, vs what they publish now, and had followed their early years, you would have never believed it would come about. Back then, I gave them 5 years before egos would tear them apart. It looked like it had come to pass when Liefeld was booted/resigned (he said/he said); but, they moved past it and matured. I give them props for that.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 11, 2018 8:17:57 GMT -5
You're being quite reductive on Jim Lee's stance on creator rights: Wildstorm was his shared superhero universe, which would be work for hire with creative rights owned by the company, but unlike any other publisher at the time, he paid out royalties to all of the creative team on his books, including inkers, letterers and colourists. There was also room for creator-owned works like Kieth's The Maxx, though. Somewhat later, Homage Comics became his imprint for the creator owned series that were published by his studio. Maybe; but, he was rather selective in who got those deals. When Image launched, they made noises that anyone who worked on an Image book shared in royalties and ownership and they quickly backpedaled on that. Lee had his own studio churning out material on a work-for-hire basis, as did Liefeld. Lee opened things up more later, with Homage; but, he came off more than a bit hypocritical, in the beginning. The Image member I respected the most; but, moreso later, was Jim Valentino. One, he was one of the guys who tended to speak more reasonably, in the early days; and, two, he was the real driving force in expanding their publishing by recruiting more distinct voices, when he took over as publisher. Larry Marder was a big factor, as well, and probably helped keep the whole thing from imploding, at the beginning, when they were missing deadlines left and right and being threatened with penalties, by Diamond and Capital. Shadow Hawk aside, Valentino tended to stick to his indie roots, which brought some artistic vision and critical acclaim to Image. It may not look it; but, I mellowed on Image, over the years, especially after guys like Liefeld and McFarlane faded into the woodwork and Larsen focused more on just producing Savage Dragon (not my cup of tea; but, he was consistently producing and it was readable and he experimented with it) and Lee pulled back to acting more as a publisher of material that I found to be better than his own. Valentino got a lot of his friends to sign up and I was reading more Image, thanks to Bone and A Distant Soil. They grew into a pretty decent line of books; but, if you look at what they did then, vs what they publish now, and had followed their early years, you would have never believed it would come about. Back then, I gave them 5 years before egos would tear them apart. It looked like it had come to pass when Liefeld was booted/resigned (he said/he said); but, they moved past it and matured. I give them props for that. I don't think you can fault the Image 7 for following a business plan that protects their investments and makes allowances for creators rights. The work for hire protects from frivolous lawsuits but they did give new creations by outside creators their ownership of the characters. Often I used to read the indicia for the image mags and they acknowledged that people like Al Gordon and Jerry Ordway owned Wildstar which was used in the Savage Dragon book. So they weren't an exact copy of the big two. As for being selective about who they used- which company isn't?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 9:18:27 GMT -5
I don't think you can fault the Image 7 for following a business plan that protects their investments and makes allowances for creators rights. The work for hire protects from frivolous lawsuits but they did give new creations by outside creators their ownership of the characters. And those were the first projects they dropped everytime Image felt it needed to cut down on its number of books, even while they kept giving the greenlight to new Younblood projects. There was also a procedural rule at Image that anytime one of the founders completed an issue of their books, it jumped the production line and pushed works from other creators aside, causing those books to get delayed. So, essentially, if you weren't a founder, you owned your own work, but you couldn't get it published on a regular schedule and, if you managed to maintain a following that way, your title was still likely to get cut the next time Rob Liefeld felt like he wanted another Youngblood title released instead. McFarlane was the one who claimed Image was about creator rights, and he was the first to try to steal creator rights from those who collaborated with him. The rest just wanted an opportunity to do their own books their own ways and, when repeatedly asked in interviews, never had a bad word to say about their time at Marvel. Only McFarlane made it about creator rights, and he clearly went on to have no respect for any creator rights that weren't his own.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 11, 2018 10:13:24 GMT -5
Let's try this again.
1. Image at the beginning was poorly run and you had to expect them to work out the kinks. If I own a company and take all the risks with my money, I reserve the right to put my book in front of someone else's book. Sorry.
2. A solid contract will have the terms under which a creator knows what to expect for his work. Work for hire is bashed a lot on this forum and understandably so , but you know whatever you do doesn't belong to you. I remember reading that Grant Morrison created a version of Spawn for a story called Medieval Spawn that he wanted to own. Sounds like nonsense to me that he could own a version of a character that's already owned by someone else. On the other hand Neil Giaman won in his fight to retain ownership of the Angela character which had no ties to any other character in the book. That was a good decision.
3. I don't think many of these disagreements are going on today. I understand that Kirkman is making millions for his Walking Dead book and show.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 10:18:43 GMT -5
If I own a company and take all the risks with my money, I reserve the right to put my book in front of someone else's book. Sorry. Agreed. But if you do so systemically AND claim you launched your company to be a champion of creators and their rights, then you are a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 11, 2018 10:22:00 GMT -5
If I own a company and take all the risks with my money, I reserve the right to put my book in front of someone else's book. Sorry. Agreed. But if you do so AND claim you launched your company to be a champion of creators and their rights, then you are a liar. The theory proceeds the execution. Not everyone did what Mcfarlane did. As I pointed out before, many guest creators had their ownership listed in the indicia. I don't think anyone got ripped off by Larsen, Lee etc.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 10:22:19 GMT -5
Also, the Image founders didn't put any money up front. They were an imprint of Malibu until they were making enough to go solo.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 10:24:23 GMT -5
Agreed. But if you do so AND claim you launched your company to be a champion of creators and their rights, then you are a liar. The theory proceeds the execution. Not everyone did what Mcfarlane did. As I pointed out before, many guest creators had their ownership listed in the indicia. I don't think anyone got ripped off by Larsen, Lee etc. I'm not talking about work for hire. I'm talking about claiming to be a champion of the creator and then stifling that creator's ability to publish their own works with your company whenever it's inconvenient for you. Image wasn't robbing these guys, but it wasn't giving them the platform it promised either, all while claiming they were championing these creators' cause. And that really sucks if you're a hot artist who left a well-paying gig for image, and now you can't even get your book published regularly.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 11, 2018 10:25:02 GMT -5
Also, the Image founders didn't put any money up front. They were an imprint of Malibu until they were making enough to go solo. At the beginning Malibu paid the way but that money didn't last forever.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,670
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 11, 2018 10:26:08 GMT -5
Also, the Image founders didn't put any money up front. They were an imprint of Malibu until they were making enough to go solo. At the beginning Malibu paid the way but that money didn't last forever. Right, but there was no risk involved. They went solo only after the cash was flowing in quite nicely.So your point that the image founders took the financial risk is not accurate.
|
|