shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 11:31:25 GMT -5
Believe it or not, Dave Sim was a big fan of Todd McFarlane. He espouses this quite a bit in his later letter columns, and even includes a homage to Spawn (it's not really a parody) in his later stories. Yes. And Todd has, to my knowledge, honored his deal to never reprint Spawn 10, which features Spawn and Cerebus having a veiled conversation about creators' rights.
I think there's a rush to paint Todd as a villain because of the Neil situation, but my feeling is the real problem was a combination of naivety and stubbornness. Todd was figuring things out on the fly, and he made some very poor decisions. He compounded that by being stubborn about those decisions rather than recitify them. I've heard the term "man-child" thrown around when discussing Todd, and I think that's as good a description as any.
I don't see painting McFarlane as a villain and as a spoiled man-child as being all that different. He was only interested in serving himself and (I believe) honestly thought that everyone else's needs would be serviced if he got what he wanted. The sheer irony of starting Image because he felt the other companies took advantage of his creative writes, rallying these writers to his side by touting this ideal, and then screwing them over more blatantly and more illegally than Marvel or DC ever did to him, is just absurd. He's like a tremendously naive version of a Bond villain. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 6, 2014 11:39:52 GMT -5
Yes. And Todd has, to my knowledge, honored his deal to never reprint Spawn 10, which features Spawn and Cerebus having a veiled conversation about creators' rights.
I think there's a rush to paint Todd as a villain because of the Neil situation, but my feeling is the real problem was a combination of naivety and stubbornness. Todd was figuring things out on the fly, and he made some very poor decisions. He compounded that by being stubborn about those decisions rather than recitify them. I've heard the term "man-child" thrown around when discussing Todd, and I think that's as good a description as any.
I don't see painting McFarlane as a villain and as a spoiled man-child as being all that different. He was only interested in serving himself and (I believe) honestly thought that everyone else's needs would be serviced if he got what he wanted. The sheer irony of starting Image because he felt the other companies took advantage of his creative writes, rallying these writers to his side by touting this ideal, and then screwing them over more blatantly and more illegally than Marvel or DC ever did to him, is just absurd. He's like a tremendously naive version of a Bond villain. I don't think it was malicious, though. Just naive, dumb, and stubborn, much like buying the home-run balls as an investment. He had a child's idea of what business was like, and he threw a tantrum when Neil called him on it. It was more absurd than anything.
Also, Neil and Todd are somewhat cordial these days. Todd was magnaminous enough to say that he's glad that Marvel is publishing Angela rather than her being trapped in legal limbo. and he's happy that Miracleman is back in print.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 11:41:28 GMT -5
Todd even appeared in the Marvel 75 From Pulp to Pop special on ABC on Tuesday night, so he obviously has some kind of working arrangement with Marvel/Disney still after everything went down.
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 11:45:09 GMT -5
Todd even appeared in the Marvel 75 From Pulp to Pop special on ABC on Tuesday night, so he obviously has some kind of working arrangement with Marvel/Disney still after everything went down. -M I posted in the Wizard reviews thread that, immediately after he left Marvel, Wizard was soliciting the videos of Stan lee interviewing him and Liefeld, and the covers had Spawn and Youngblood characters on them. I'm still wondering if Lee and Marvel did this with him after he left, or if someone saw the marketing potential of putting the new Image characters on the covers and somehow pulled off the licensing necessary to do this. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 11:47:46 GMT -5
I don't see painting McFarlane as a villain and as a spoiled man-child as being all that different. He was only interested in serving himself and (I believe) honestly thought that everyone else's needs would be serviced if he got what he wanted. The sheer irony of starting Image because he felt the other companies took advantage of his creative writes, rallying these writers to his side by touting this ideal, and then screwing them over more blatantly and more illegally than Marvel or DC ever did to him, is just absurd. He's like a tremendously naive version of a Bond villain. I don't think it was malicious, though. No. Like I said, naive and narcissistic. I think Todd honestly believed (in a Calvin and Hobbes sort of way) that if the entire world came together to make him happy, that would somehow make everyone happy. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 6, 2014 11:56:03 GMT -5
I don't think it was malicious, though. No. Like I said, naive and narcissistic. I think Todd honestly believed (in a Calvin and Hobbes sort of way) that if the entire world came together to make him happy, that would somehow make everyone happy. Oh, I totally agree with that. That seems to be everyone's take on Todd. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 4:00:53 GMT -5
I still can't believe Todd got Alan Moore, Dave Sim, Frank Miller and Neal Gaiman to work on those crappy early Image properties. Obviously those guys have one hell of a sense of humor, because they're all far too smart to have ever taken the endeavor seriously. Yeah, that, or they all had to take care of some tax dept. I'm wondering what that was all about too. Except Dave Sim. Obviously his comic was better than Spawn, but he was always a huge proponent of creator owned comics. When Image started it was kind of out of protest of Marvel's IP stealing, so I can see Sim being behind that even if he wasn't totally into the comics they did. Remember, he loaned Cerebus out to Eastman and Laird early on too. And he was hyping Elfquest since the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 7, 2014 7:06:19 GMT -5
I think with Sim he has always been behind independent creators on principle. He might not care for genre fiction, but that's besides the point, and I respect him for that. Too many creators like Sim become elitist snobs and start perpetually missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 13:16:44 GMT -5
I still can't believe Todd got Alan Moore, Dave Sim, Frank Miller and Neal Gaiman to work on those crappy early Image properties. Obviously those guys have one hell of a sense of humor, because they're all far too smart to have ever taken the endeavor seriously. Yeah, that, or they all had to take care of some tax dept. I'm wondering what that was all about too. Except Dave Sim. Obviously his comic was better than Spawn, but he was always a huge proponent of creator owned comics. When Image started it was kind of out of protest of Marvel's IP stealing, so I can see Sim being behind that even if he wasn't totally into the comics they did. Remember, he loaned Cerebus out to Eastman and Laird early on too. And he was hyping Elfquest since the beginning. Sim was still very much in his "evangelist for self-publishing phase" at this point, and he hadn't yet marginalized himself with his bizarre views on women. Even though his Creators' Bill of Rights and much of the self-publishing movement had already fizzled by this point, Sim was still very much preaching not only that people had to do it for themselves, but they could makes a good living doing it. And people were still listening: Eddie Campbell left Hellblazer after 4 issues in 1994-5 and moved Deadface/Bacchus from Dark Horse in order to self-publish on Sim's advice.
Again, it was about solidarity more than anything else. Early Image comics were not good (with the exception of The Maxx), but they were the product of creators taking the power away from the Big Two and keeping it in their own hands. That was very appealing to Moore and Sim in particular as they were left to their own devices. (Miller had a sweet deal with DH through Legend, and Gaiman, as he mentions in his deposition, was being given unpreceded controlling stakes over his creations by DC, something they still honor.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 7, 2014 13:36:18 GMT -5
I'm glad that Dark Horse has been brought up. I realize that they weren't trying to compete with the Big Two, but they were the third largest publisher out there AND they built their empire on creator-owned works like Chadwick's Concrete. Why didn't McFarlane, Liefeld, and the bunch try them first?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 14:43:35 GMT -5
I'd like to say Dark Horse had higher standards, but that probably isn't it. This is around the time they were trying to start up their own super hero shared universe. It's possible they just didn't offer a better deal than Mirage, but I would be surprised if they hadn't been contacted early on.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 16:26:22 GMT -5
I'm glad that Dark Horse has been brought up. I realize that they weren't trying to compete with the Big Two, but they were the third largest publisher out there AND they built their empire on creator-owned works like Chadwick's Concrete. Why didn't McFarlane, Liefeld, and the bunch try them first? Because they were all young guys who had just come into a ton of money and wanted to do it for themselves. (Image actually got its start through Malibu, but before publication, they were able to exist as a independent entity.) Legend was a great deal, but it was a bit more discerning in who they approached, ie Miller, Byrne, Mignola, Chadwick, etc. Also, Dark Horse wanted a percentage-- this is something that Byrne still complains about as he's settled at IDW-- but Image actually owns nothing. All the rights are in the hands of the creators. Once the book has covered production and a small administration cost, the creators get all monies on the backend.
After parting with the Image guys, Malibu would start its own creator-owned line with Chaykin, Simonson, Starlin, and Marv Wolfman named Bravura. It wasn't as successful as Image or Legend, but it did produce some quality books. And its Ultraverse had creator-participation deals that were far more inviting than the industry standard, which is why Marvel has done nothing with the characters in years-- royalties are very high even in comparison to DC's standards under Levitz.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 16:36:53 GMT -5
I'd like to say Dark Horse had higher standards, but that probably isn't it. This is around the time they were trying to start up their own super hero shared universe. It's possible they just didn't offer a better deal than Mirage, but I would be surprised if they hadn't been contacted early on. Mirage/Tundra was already in pretty desperate financial straits at this point. Eastman had really overcommitted to Tundra, and he was spending money like water with little return. It was a combination of advances to creators that never produced, and general mismangement on poor marketing choices like huge lavish parties to court creators. Eventually, Eastman would sell Tundra to Denis Kitchen for $1 just to get it off his hands. (This is why From Hell had such a checkered publication history.)
Besides, Tundra was more interested in different material than your standard superhero faire. It's kinda telling that their exclusive artist was Simon Bisley, not someone like McFarlane or Lee. Tundra wanted to be seen as the prestige imprint, but that bit them in the ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 7, 2014 16:40:33 GMT -5
I'm glad that Dark Horse has been brought up. I realize that they weren't trying to compete with the Big Two, but they were the third largest publisher out there AND they built their empire on creator-owned works like Chadwick's Concrete. Why didn't McFarlane, Liefeld, and the bunch try them first? At that point, wasn't Dark Horse more about licenses than created owned stuff? Or was that not until later? (it's certainly the case now) Besides, who's to say they didn't try Dark Horse and get rejected? One thing Dark Horse has never really done is marketing gimmicks (with the possible exception of Dark Empire). |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 16:48:45 GMT -5
I'm glad that Dark Horse has been brought up. I realize that they weren't trying to compete with the Big Two, but they were the third largest publisher out there AND they built their empire on creator-owned works like Chadwick's Concrete. Why didn't McFarlane, Liefeld, and the bunch try them first? At that point, wasn't Dark Horse more about licenses than created owned stuff? Or was that not until later? (it's certainly the case now) Besides, who's to say they didn't try Dark Horse and get rejected? One thing Dark Horse has never really done is marketing gimmicks (with the possible exception of Dark Empire). Dark Horse's business model had traditionally been to use licensed properties to subsidize their creator-owned books. That was certainly true in the time period we're discussing, but they did make a big deal out of Legend as well landing books like Grendel, Nexus, Usagi Yojimbo, etc.
It's very different these days. DH's bread and butter these days is actually their established creator-owned stuff, particularly the Mignola-verse. That's why they were indifferent to losing the Star Wars license. They have a tremendous back catalog of books that people are always discovering as they branch out in the medium like the Mignola-verse, Sin City etc.
|
|
