|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 6, 2014 22:25:27 GMT -5
For all the bellyaching that we do about the 90s, I have to admit that the rise of Image Comics is one thing that turned out pretty well. Don't take me the wrong way -- the actual content put out by Image in the 90s was awful, and even as a teenager I could never get into it. And one could certainly debate the character and/or business practices of some of the founders, and whether some other upstart group would have eventually done what Image did without the drama or damage they initially caused. But I think you have to admit that Image today is a far different company than the Image of the 90s. I have about 17 titles on my pull list, and close to a dozen are Image titles, with the rest split between Marvel, DC, and Boom. I think they are putting out some really quality stories, and I appreciate all the little touches like using high quality paper, placing all the house ads in the back, and providing more content while still being cheaper than most Marvel and DC books. As far as giving creators a fair shake -- they seem to have no trouble attracting big name creators in droves. Every other day you hear something online about a Marvel or DC creator moving over to do a creator-owned series at Image.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 4:10:30 GMT -5
Although a lot of the Image launch stuff was drek, I think they had some good stuff pretty early on. I am to this day a huge Maxx fan. I consider it an alternative comic disguised as a superhero comic. I think it may have broadened some horizons, and it was definitely a sign of things to come with the kind of stuff Image would publish.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 7, 2014 9:37:15 GMT -5
But those tactics largely didn't work. In my mind, those marked a first era of attempting to raise revenues, which ultimately failed. The multi-arcs and creative marketing of the late 1980s was sort of a version 2.0, tried on a different generation of readers, as I see it. I don't know... the giant size Marvels did contribute quite a few historic stories... my impression is they didn't fail so much as Marvel didn't have the creative resources to keep doing so much extra material. I agree DC's pretty much failed.. still, though, it was an attempt. The guys in the 90s didn't come up with it all on their own. Considering it's success in the 90s, they took the previous attempts and were able to learn from them. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 7, 2014 9:47:36 GMT -5
RE: Image.. it's kinda ironic that the principles that they CLAIMED to have been founded on (creator rights and freedom), which clearly didn't exist then (as all the lawsuits over rights since have shown), seem to be what's drawing todays top talent to take their stuff to Image (and Boom, to a lesser extent).
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 13:32:01 GMT -5
RE: Image.. it's kinda ironic that the principles that they CLAIMED to have been founded on (creator rights and freedom), which clearly didn't exist then (as all the lawsuits over rights since have shown), seem to be what's drawing todays top talent to take their stuff to Image (and Boom, to a lesser extent). I think it's pretty evident that Jim Valentino's term as Editor-in-Chief really changed the shape of what Image was. It was then that the original creators' universes (the ones that were left) were pushed to the backburner, and it became foremost a publisher of creator-owned material. Erik Larsen continued down that path, and Eric Stephenson has expanded it even further. I don't many people even think about Spawn/TMP or Top Cow when they think about Image these days. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 7, 2014 13:40:55 GMT -5
I agree.. it's just funny that it took someone else to deliver on MacFarlane's ideas/promises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 7, 2014 16:13:37 GMT -5
My assessment of McFarlane et al on "creator's rights" is that they were very vocal about it when it was something that directly affected them and their bottom line. Once they were in a position to call the shots they seemed to become awfully silent about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 16:22:08 GMT -5
My assessment of McFarlane et al on "creator's rights" is that they were very vocal about it when it was something that directly affected them and their bottom line. Once they were in a position to call the shots they seemed to become awfully silent about it. I think he wanted the Marvel business model, but where the "Creator" gets all the money instead of some shareholders. So he could create Spawn, then outsource the creative duties to studio talent who don't get paid anything, but it's okay because the creator of Spawn is getting paid. Kind of as if Bob Kane got paid instead of DC executives for Batman, but the creators still got screwed. I think that was his vision for "Creator owned" publishing. The problem with that is, what stops the writers and artists of Spawn from cramming as much as their own creations into the hottest (at the time) Image comic to give them a great intro to their own series, that they could take to some other publisher if they felt like it since it's their own creation? That's kind of exactly what Liefeld wanted to do to Marvel I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 7, 2014 16:55:29 GMT -5
My assessment of McFarlane et al on "creator's rights" is that they were very vocal about it when it was something that directly affected them and their bottom line. Once they were in a position to call the shots they seemed to become awfully silent about it. I don't know. Valentino has always been staunchly behind creator rights, but he also got his start by self-publishing. Larsen's also really walked the walk. McFarlane and Lee seem to be the ones that abandoned the principle as soon as they got successful. Liefeld, too, to a certain extent, but he's done well by Brandon Graham in the past few years. (And some of Liefeld's poor business decisions do seem to be linked to a drug habit. We can't say the same about his art.) |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 7, 2014 23:13:41 GMT -5
My assessment of McFarlane et al on "creator's rights" is that they were very vocal about it when it was something that directly affected them and their bottom line. Once they were in a position to call the shots they seemed to become awfully silent about it. I don't know. Valentino has always been staunchly behind creator rights, but he also got his start by self-publishing. Larsen's also really walked the walk. McFarlane and Lee seem to be the ones that abandoned the principle as soon as they got successful. Liefeld, too, to a certain extent, but he's done well by Brandon Graham in the past few years. (And some of Liefeld's poor business decisions do seem to be linked to a drug habit. We can't say the same about his art.) You're right, I should have been more specific in my statement instead of making broad statements. I agree about McFarlane, to the extent of what I know/heard. With respect to Lee, I have a lot of mixed feelings on his business decisions post-Image -- not in the sense that I think he did anything dishonest or openly screwed over other creators (that may have happened, I just haven't heard anything to that effect), but more in the sense of flip-flopping between 1) feeling like he "sold out" versus 2) thinking that he made some really shrewd business decisions that enabled him to further raise the value for his own personal brand. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 8, 2014 1:23:54 GMT -5
I don't know. Valentino has always been staunchly behind creator rights, but he also got his start by self-publishing. Larsen's also really walked the walk. McFarlane and Lee seem to be the ones that abandoned the principle as soon as they got successful. Liefeld, too, to a certain extent, but he's done well by Brandon Graham in the past few years. (And some of Liefeld's poor business decisions do seem to be linked to a drug habit. We can't say the same about his art.) You're right, I should have been more specific in my statement instead of making broad statements. I agree about McFarlane, to the extent of what I know/heard. With respect to Lee, I have a lot of mixed feelings on his business decisions post-Image -- not in the sense that I think he did anything dishonest or openly screwed over other creators (that may have happened, I just haven't heard anything to that effect), but more in the sense of flip-flopping between 1) feeling like he "sold out" versus 2) thinking that he made some really shrewd business decisions that enabled him to further raise the value for his own personal brand. The only creator I've ever seen badmouth Lee is Steve Bissette, who feels that Lee hijacked 1963 with the sole intent of poaching Alan Moore for his own books. Lee is known as one of the nicest guys in the industry, and I think that reputation is largely deserved. Still, I don't think it was about creator rights for him as just creating in general... and possibly buying a villa in Italy. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 8, 2014 12:23:30 GMT -5
The only creator I've ever seen badmouth Lee is Steve Bissette, who feels that Lee hijacked 1963 with the sole intent of poaching Alan Moore for his own books. Lee is known as one of the nicest guys in the industry, and I think that reputation is largely deserved. Still, I don't think it was about creator rights for him as just creating in general... and possibly buying a villa in Italy. I'm inclined to agree with your last sentence. When I say that he "sold out" (quotes intended), I don't mean that out of some personal sense of betrayal or bitterness that he abandoned his principles. It's more of a humorous/ironic commentary on the path his career has taken. He was originally a superstar artist at Marvel who left that company to start up Image, ostensibly so he could draw and create comics without having to answer to someone else. But then he went back to Marvel for a bit, and then eventually sold his own studio for a corporate gig at DC. He's essentially become a part of the machine that he was trying to escape. The ironic part is that even though he's a co-publisher, he still has to answer to the higher ups at Warner, so he surrendered some of that freedom he previously had. Then again, as I indicated in my previous post, you could just look at it all as him being smart and strategic about his career. Heading up Wildstorm was great and all, but going to DC and drawing Batman has got to have done things for his career that doing indie work never could. When you think about it, from a creator standpoint it's not a bad gig at all -- he gets to draw and do monthly comics, which he still seems to have a desire for, but has the security and paycheck of a corporate job. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Nov 8, 2014 19:29:18 GMT -5
Great thread.
Regarding Jim Lee's current position, until very recently getting promoted to the corporate world was the only way to work in the industry and have any sort of job security. Look at John Romita. Worked the bullpen until he got a staff job as Art Director. I'm sure his retirement is much more comfortable as a result, as opposed to someone like Steve Ditko who has only ever been in the trenches. Happily, times have changed and if you have the skill, business savvy and a massive amount of luck you can parlay your comics work into something that actually earns you money. Look at Robert Kirkman and Mark Millar, they're making money off of their own properties. Thats pretty damn cool and, partially, thanks to Jim Lee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Nov 8, 2014 23:37:52 GMT -5
For all the bellyaching that we do about the 90s, I have to admit that the rise of Image Comics is one thing that turned out pretty well. Don't take me the wrong way -- the actual content put out by Image in the 90s was awful, and even as a teenager I could never get into it. And one could certainly debate the character and/or business practices of some of the founders, and whether some other upstart group would have eventually done what Image did without the drama or damage they initially caused. But I think you have to admit that Image today is a far different company than the Image of the 90s. I have about 17 titles on my pull list, and close to a dozen are Image titles, with the rest split between Marvel, DC, and Boom. I think they are putting out some really quality stories, and I appreciate all the little touches like using high quality paper, placing all the house ads in the back, and providing more content while still being cheaper than most Marvel and DC books. As far as giving creators a fair shake -- they seem to have no trouble attracting big name creators in droves. Every other day you hear something online about a Marvel or DC creator moving over to do a creator-owned series at Image. Absolutely...I'm becoming more and more bored with Marvel and DC, but Image...Saga, Manhattan Projects, Clone, Revival, Walking Dead...so much more fun, and so much diversity. Its just so damned hard to get bored by Image today, can you say that about Marvel and DC? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 0:27:07 GMT -5
Great thread. Regarding Jim Lee's current position, until very recently getting promoted to the corporate world was the only way to work in the industry and have any sort of job security. Look at John Romita. Worked the bullpen until he got a staff job as Art Director. I'm sure his retirement is much more comfortable as a result, as opposed to someone like Steve Ditko who has only ever been in the trenches. Happily, times have changed and if you have the skill, business savvy and a massive amount of luck you can parlay your comics work into something that actually earns you money. Look at Robert Kirkman and Mark Millar, they're making money off of their own properties. Thats pretty damn cool and, partially, thanks to Jim Lee. It wasn't entirely too recently that Eastman and Laird did okay working for themselves. |
|
