CON: Diamond Seminar Report, Frank Miller's speech
Patman
>Diamond Retailers Seminar, day two, part two
>Sunday, June 12
>Including: Frank Miller Keynote Speech
>There's quite a wait before dinner starts. We sit around on the balcony.
> 12 feet away, Image guys (Rob, Mark, Erik & Jim) are hanging out with
> John Byrne's art dealer. I think they're trying to trade original pages
> or something. Meanwhile Todd is addressing a throng, explaining why #21
> really *should* be ahead of #19 & 20, and why when he has people do
> work-for-hire it doesn't diminish Spawn's quality. etc.
Hmm...when I walked up to the mini-Todd rap session, he was talking about
making changes in the Spawn-spawned toy figures while the figures were
in production, so you'd get some OvertKill figures with a hand that rotated
and some that didn't...that way you give the toy figure collector something
to chase after. Todd claimed that he made changes to make the figures more
"cool" and not to appeal to the toy figure collector who wants all the
variations of a toy figure. Sure. Can't wait for the Spawn figure whose
mask comes off and has a white man's face underneath, and also a figure that
has a black man's face underneath.
Rob Liefeld, Jim Lee, Erik Larsen and some other Image contingents were
going thru original art from John Byrne and from the looks of it, John
Byrne's bank account rose a little after the informal JB art show.
[Snip]
>Finally, the Big Event.
>8:20 Frank Miller Keynote Speech
>Frank begins by asking everyone to stand in toast for Don Thompson, the
> greatest comics fan, and Jack Kirby, the greatest comics artist. Then,
> like a bolt from the blue, his assault begins.
>"An Age has passed with Jack's death. I will not call it the Marvel Age,
> because I do not believe in rewarding thievery." Bam! The crowd reels.
Like it's Miller's place to call any age anything. *Rolls eyes*
Kirby forced Marvel's hand when he sued Marvel to get his artwork back.
Kirby's artwork was used as a bargaining chip in the lawsuit. Shooter
later explained how other early Marvel artists (Ditko, Ayers, etc.) had
their artwork returned to them once Shooter got the ball rolling. Shooter
stated that at early stages of Marvel, original artwork was sometimes sent
to the writers and not the artists for no good reason besides incompetence.
Other times, the artwork was shredded. So when Kirby sued, Marvel kept
the artwork until a settlement was reached. Can't remember what was
finally decided in the lawsuit though. While Miller calls what Marvel
did thievery, he forgets to place context in Marvel's actions. In the
1960's, the artwork was work-for-hire and the pages were the property of
the publisher unless other arrangements were made. At the time, the
artists were happy to just be drawing comics, much less worried if they'd
get their artwork back. The work was work-for-hire.
>Frank changes his tempo, and tells a story of his youth (which may or
> may not be true). "Comics are weird, sure." When he was a boy, a big
> kid named Freddy Markham used to bully him for being small and weird.
So comic publishers are now bullies. Nice analogy.
>As a child, Frank believed he was Superboy. He wore a Superboy costume
> under his clothes. Until Freddy beat him up. Frank grew up that day;
> now he believed he was Spiderman, since Spidey had problems too. But
> Frank fought back, and earned Freddy's respect. He learned to survive.
Sure, leave the publisher and make good in comics, make the publishers
sit up and take note of your accomplishments.
>"Our forebears stormed the beaches of Normandy, beat Adolf Hitler, really
> did save the whole world, and along they way they brought us comics.
> But history is often written by the villains. We must not forget our
> history, and we must honor our dead."
Ooo...equating comic publishers with Hitler...
>"'misconceptions.' 'the outside world.' Too many people don't know the
> truth about our history." Frank rails against that great infamy of
> comicdom, the Comics Code Authority. "What everyone doesn't remember
> is that Frederic Wertham *LOST*. Even in the paranoid 1950's, the
> United States Senate *vindicated* comics, and said comics were not to
> blame for juvenile delinquency."
Hmm...Miller's never heard of taking precautions, eh? Some lawsuits are
not used to win, just to put someone out of business. Marvel suing
Defiant over "Plasm" comes to mind...
>"Why would a vital industry castrate itself? The industry had a problem.
> A problem named William Gaines. William Gaines was that rarest of
> creatures, an intelligent publisher." The other publishers couldn't
> compete with him fairly, so they made the Comics Code to destroy him.
> Frank then recites from the original Code, where it banned all comics
> with the words 'crime', 'shock', 'horror', 'fear', etc in the title.
See other comments made about Gaines and the state of the comic industry
in the 1950's by Lance Visser and Abhijit. Miller was misinterpreting the
facts to suit his own ends here. Again, Miller forgets context for which
the CCA was developed.
>"Misconceptions: our industry cringes like a battered child. 'Nobody
> will bother us if we apologize.' 'Warnings on the cover will protect
> us.' 'The storm troopers will let us go if we say we're sorry.' Let
> me tell you, cover advisories are NOT protection, they are a BEACON
> to our would-be censors. We need to stand up to Freddy Markham."
Yeah, sure. Any would-be censor would do just as well to pick up a
copy of Previews or Advance Comics catalogs where Miller *does* label
his books "Suggested for Mature Readers". Gee, it'd really take a lot
of brains to make up a list of "Mature Reader" comics. As to the labels
being a BEACON to the would-be censor, there are benefits of labelling.
The foremost reason for labels is to help the comics retailer. Remember
them? They are the ones in the front line who are trying to sell your
comics, trying to make ends meet, trying to provide entertainment to
comic fans, trying to make sure their consumer base gets the comics
they want? They are the ones who take the heat when something
inappropriate is bought by someone not mature enough to handle a
mature comic's content. Without the retailer, Mr. Miller, you are
a nobody in the comics industry.
There is no way a comics retailer can read every comic that comes out
during the week. What if a "mature readers" comic (unlabelled) is bought
by a young child and their parent finds the comics and storms into the
store and bitches the retailer out? How does not labelling the comics help
the retailer out? Does a label censor a creator's output in the comic
medium? No, what Miller is afraid of is the marketing aspect of this
situation. Miller wants to his comics to sell as high a number as
possible...even if the comics get into the hands of children who aren't
mature enough to handle the contents of the comic. Does Miller care that
his comics are sold to children not mature enough to handle his "Sin City"
stories? No. All he cares about is the bottom line: Money. He's afraid
that the label will limit his sales. Do children buy "Sin City"? I'd
be pretty sure that it's been sold to children who shouldn't have been
permitted to buy it at the comics store since it's not labelled "Mature
Readers" on the cover. I'm sure Miller would say that it's the parents'
responsibility to make sure comic purchases are on the up and up. Let's
be pragmatic here: that's not always going to happen. For times like
these, labels help point out mature comics to retailers and they can
adjust their sales strategy without getting angry parents picketing their
stores from kneekerk reactionaries. It happens. It's real life. Deal
with it, Mr. Miller.
>"It's all a matter of choices, and whether we'll be left free to make
> them." Frank talks about his position with the Comic Book Legal Defense
> Fund, and gets a round of applause for Denis Kitchen (CBLDF founder).
Sure, make a mess and have the CBLDF clean it up.
>"We are in the publishing business. We sell *books*. Bookstores don't
> put warnings on the covers of novels. Book publishers don't read a
> manuscript and ask 'Will this rate an R?' Cover advisories will move
> us away from the safety of publishing."
Well, in this country, comics are marketed predominatedly towards kids.
By their very nature, comics tend to be easy to read and comprehended by
kids. It's natural for kids to be told stories through the combination
of words and pictures. When you create comics, the art will attract young
readers that may or may not be mature enough to handle mature themes in
the comics. Is it asking too much for an advisory label? No one is
telling what stories you can and can't write/draw. No one is censoring
your comic book output. All that retailers want is something that lets
them know that some books should be sold to "mature readers" in order
for the books to get into the intended audience. I think Miller is
still bitter about the treatment he received while in Hollywood doing
the Robocop sequels (which translated poorly to the big screen anyway).
I think Miller should have amended his statement to: "We sell *books*
to kids and adults, we have a responsibilty to make sure the books make
it to their intended audience."
>Frank then mounts a defense of Neal Adams, calling him a hero and a
> visionary. He fought for artist's rights. "In the early days, at least
> one publisher routinely shredded original art as a matter of policy.
> Often, the completed art pages were given back -- to the *writer*.
> Neal Adams taught us that company loyalty is an oxymoron."
Yep, that was the standard practice at the time, and the artists put up
with the system until Neal got fed up with it. But it wasn't malice on
the part of the publishers, it was just the way things were.
>Next on the chopping block is Jim Shooter, and his attempt to rewrite
> the history of creator's rights. "I knew Jim Shooter wrote this title
> called Legion of Super Heroes, but I didn't know he was Duo Damsel."
> POW! A roaring mixture of cheers, laughs & outrage fills the room.
And Shooter gave his side of the creator's rights issue. Remember,
Shooter was editor-in-chief at Marvel. He only was respsonsible for
the creative output of Marvel comics. He wasn't responsible for the
policies that existed before he got to Marvel. He did try to make it
better for freelancers who did work for Marvel while he was there.
Shooter understood the meaing of work-for-hire, why didn't Miller?
Maybe Miller started at the wrong comic publisher. Maybe Miller should
remember the context in which he was employed at Marvel. Again, the
applause from the crowd made it apparent to me that retailers can be
led all too easily. Just look at their ordering habits. Too many
retailers take things at face value and believe the hype.
>"Marvel Comics thinks that fans are so stupid they can't tell good books
> from bad. But they can be forgiven this, since their sales aren't
> leaving in droves, like the talent is." This shot gets all cheers,
> except for a few tables near the front. Gee, who's sitting there?
And yet, Marvel does continue to produce comics with their characters
month after month, dependent on freelancers to carry on the comic-based
adventures of their characters. To me, "work-for-hire" and "creator-
owned" comics shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive as Miller would
lead you to be. Spider-Man was there before McFarlane got there and he
continues to be published with the work of freelancers now. All McFarlane
can do is play musical issue numbers with his creation, Spawn. Yeah,
if that's the best of creator-owned comics, I'll take Spider-Man all
the time.
>But Frank, didn't you used to work for Marvel? He answers the unspoken
> question. "I knew the rules coming in the door. They can fire you
> whenever they want. It doesn't matter if the title is popular. Ask
> Chris Claremont, ask Louise Simonson, ask Jo Duffy." Cheering fills
> the room again.
Ooo...the real world rears its ugly head in comics. People get fired
everyday in the US. It's not a new concept. The boss gets to fired
anyone he/she wants to without due cause. Gee, where was Miller when
Image fired Grell, Stroman and Johnson, Giffen, etc? What a fucking
hypocritical shit-for-brains comment that was, Miller.
>"I love Sin City. I write it. I draw it. There will be no fill-in
> issues. I can make that promise, because I *own* Sin City."
"Hmm...and if I'm like Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee, I can farm out the
stories of my creation if I want to since I own the characters and
I can *gasp* use work-for-hire to continue the further adventures of
my creations if I so choose." All that's changed is that Miller gets
a bigger piece of the pie with creator-owned projects. That's it.
>"At Marvel, Todd McFarlane and the talented circus [...] were the best
> paid creators in the industry. But they knew that the best they could
> achieve is the status of well-paid servants. So they quit. And even
> better, they all quit *at once*."
Not a really ballsy move since even if the Image gang failed, they'd
still get jobs elsewhere since they are *perceived* to have talent.
No one at Marvel was pointing a gun and told them they must work for
a work-for-hire system. They did it because they made a living at
doing comics. Since Marvel wasn't going to change their mode of
operation, they did what any sane person would do. They left. Big
deal. What's wrong with work-for-hire? The overwhelming majority of
the employees in the US work under the work-for-hire system. What makes
working in comics so special that each and every comics creator must do
creator-owned projects to survive? If you can create characters that lead
to grand licensing and merchandising deals, more power to you, don't begrudge
your success one bit, but don't say creator-owned is the only way to go.
>So Marvel shook its head and said 'they'll be back.' "And I'm sure that
> as they lay in bed at night, they asked themselves 'did we just make
> the mistake of our lives?'"
Any big change like that in one's life would make anyone think that.
What an astute observation.
>But Image succeeded, wildly. And Frank wants to know why people hate
> them so much. "The number one comic is creator owned, so why isn't
> every artist in the industry celebrating?" He steps back, pausing for
> the required applause. And it is there.
Could it be because Todd is such a jerk? Nah....
Also, with this bout of musical issue numbering, I doubt Spawn is
currying any brownie points with retailers. Creator-owned comics
lead to excesses from their creators once the ego's get out of control.
>"They inspired Legend, Bravura, and more to come."
So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel? What's the big
deal? Independent and small press comics are full of creator-owned
projects. So Image managed to capture market share in the current
comics industry. Where will these Image comics be in 5, 10, 15, 20
years? Will WildCATS be here in 2 years from now? Judging from
Stormwatch 25, no. Will Spawn be here in 10 years? Unless Spawn
gets a new power source, I doubt it he'll exist in his present
incarnation. Will there be more than 100 issues of Spawn in 10 years?
I highly doubt it based on McFarlane's track record. Will there be
120 issues of Superman in the next 10 years? I think there is a high
possibility there will be. Many of these creator-driven lines of comics
are transient. A mini-series here, one there. Who will care in 2 years'
time? When will Shadowhawk die of AIDS? Within 6 years as the average
bout with HIV would suggest?
>"It's a scary time, because change is always scary. But the pieces are
> all in place." The comics industry can become better than ever. And
> I believe him. A huge standing ovation ensues.
It won't get better due to Image comics being the fine, upstanding
comics publisher that it pretends to be. The comics industry will
get better once comic publishers get their act together and bear
responsibility for their solicitations and put out quality comics
on time. To Todd McFarlane, "responsibility" is a 4-letter word.
To Frank Miller, "Mature reader" is the mark of death for a comic
in the direct market. Would "Sin City" even be carried on the
newsstands if there was no direct market? No way in hell. Miller
doesn't understand how lucky he is to be a creator in a direct market
scenario. There is no way he'd be scolding Marvel if the direct market
didn't exist. He'd still be a "well-paid servant". Take some
responsibility for the survival for the direct market, Mr. Miller.
Thinking labels only light the way for would-be censors is the easy
way to avoid responsibilty for your work. No wonder you're so gung-ho
on the CBLDF. Care to do the right thing? Keep the direct
market healthy. Label your work so retailers can continue to sell your
work to the appropriate audience.
>Then we left Steve Geppi and the hideous Gem Awards behind, bound for
> Dave Sim's place.
Now that was fun.
>More later. Up next, Patman's rebuttal to Miller's speech, and my tale
> of the Radisson Party.
Yup, tis me.
--
Patman - All opinions are mine, not Ma Tech's.
"I checked over the ComicFest Debate rules, and I can't find anywhere
that it says, 'Loser gets to debate John Byrne." -- John Byrne's
response when asked by Dragon Con to consider debating McFarlane this year.
Michael Sullivan
> In article <2u6n6q...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, Francis A Uy <fu...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> >But Frank, didn't you used to work for Marvel? He answers the unspoken
> > question. "I knew the rules coming in the door. They can fire you
> > whenever they want. It doesn't matter if the title is popular. Ask
> > Chris Claremont, ask Louise Simonson, ask Jo Duffy." Cheering fills
> > the room again.
>
> Ooo...the real world rears its ugly head in comics. People get fired
> everyday in the US. It's not a new concept. The boss gets to fired
> anyone he/she wants to without due cause. Gee, where was Miller when
> Image fired Grell, Stroman and Johnson, Giffen, etc? What a fucking
> hypocritical shit-for-brains comment that was, Miller.
Image dropped those folks' titles, not Frank Miller. I don't see how
hypocrisy enters into it.
> >"I love Sin City. I write it. I draw it. There will be no fill-in
> > issues. I can make that promise, because I *own* Sin City."
>
> "Hmm...and if I'm like Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee, I can farm out the
> stories of my creation if I want to since I own the characters and
> I can *gasp* use work-for-hire to continue the further adventures of
> my creations if I so choose." All that's changed is that Miller gets
> a bigger piece of the pie with creator-owned projects. That's it.
Again, you're equating Image with Frank Miller and there's no reason for it.
> >"At Marvel, Todd McFarlane and the talented circus [...] were the best
> > paid creators in the industry. But they knew that the best they could
> > achieve is the status of well-paid servants. So they quit. And even
> > better, they all quit *at once*."
>
> Not a really ballsy move since even if the Image gang failed, they'd
> still get jobs elsewhere since they are *perceived* to have talent.
Unless the creators went bankrupt or put out stuff that damaged their
reputations or got blackballed by the big two or fell out of favor with
fans, etc.
--
Michael Sullivan sull...@fa.disney.com
Walt Disney Feature Animation +1 818 544 2683 (voice)
Glendale, CA +1 818 544 4579 (fax)
Patman
>Patman (gt5...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
>> In article <2u6n6q...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, Francis A Uy <fu...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>> >But Frank, didn't you used to work for Marvel? He answers the unspoken
>> > question. "I knew the rules coming in the door. They can fire you
>> > whenever they want. It doesn't matter if the title is popular. Ask
>> > Chris Claremont, ask Louise Simonson, ask Jo Duffy." Cheering fills
>> > the room again.
>> Ooo...the real world rears its ugly head in comics. People get fired
>> everyday in the US. It's not a new concept. The boss gets to fired
>> anyone he/she wants to without due cause. Gee, where was Miller when
>> Image fired Grell, Stroman and Johnson, Giffen, etc? What a fucking
>> hypocritical shit-for-brains comment that was, Miller.
>Image dropped those folks' titles, not Frank Miller. I don't see how
>hypocrisy enters into it.
Here is the hypocrisy: Miller holds Image as a good thing in comics
since it's supposedly creator-driven. The point being that that people in
comics get fired everyday and there doesn't have to be a good reason
for it. So when Marvel (that big, bad bully) fires off the popular
creators off their respective books, Miller says that's a bad thing that
happens with work-for-hire. Now Miller goes on to say Image is this
great thing that happened to the comics industry since their emphasis is
on creator-owned comics. Well, here I point out that Image did their own
share of firing popular creators with no real good rationale given. Now
to me, having Miller say Image is good and Marvel is bad when they do the
same exact thing with regards to firings is hypocritical. If you don't
get this point, then you miss the point entirely. Let's face it: Image
is just the biggest vanity comic publisher in the industry. They happen
to be able to exert a certain amount of power since their comics do sell
a lot. But this doesn't mean the way they do things is any better or
worse than what Marvel or DC does to get comics published.
>> >"I love Sin City. I write it. I draw it. There will be no fill-in
>> > issues. I can make that promise, because I *own* Sin City."
>> "Hmm...and if I'm like Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee, I can farm out the
>> stories of my creation if I want to since I own the characters and
>> I can *gasp* use work-for-hire to continue the further adventures of
>> my creations if I so choose." All that's changed is that Miller gets
>> a bigger piece of the pie with creator-owned projects. That's it.
>Again, you're equating Image with Frank Miller and there's no reason for it.
Sure there is. I do so because of Miller's comments that Image is what the
comics industry needs and that being a creator-driven publisher is the
way to go in the future. I will always point out that Image wants
to become Marvel Comics in the worst way (again I'm paraphrasing John Byrne).
Does Miller realize that by supporting Image, he supports the Marvel way as
well? I don't think so. That is Miller's blind spot. Miller is so enamored
with the idea of creator-owned comics that he just doesn't see Image for
what it is. By drawing to the logical conclusions of what it means to be
a creator-owned comics publisher, you'll come up with Marvel and DC.
So what if Miller will never let another person do a fill-in issue of Sin
City. What does that say? Maybe Miller wants to protect the integrity of
his vision of Sin City? Good for him. For other creators, it means that
they can farm out the work once they set up the foundation and reap the
higer royalties later on. I have no problems with that. Just call a
spade and spade. By supporting Image, Miller destroys his credibility
with me when he bashes Marvel.
>> >"At Marvel, Todd McFarlane and the talented circus [...] were the best
>> > paid creators in the industry. But they knew that the best they could
>> > achieve is the status of well-paid servants. So they quit. And even
>> > better, they all quit *at once*."
>> Not a really ballsy move since even if the Image gang failed, they'd
>> still get jobs elsewhere since they are *perceived* to have talent.
>Unless the creators went bankrupt or put out stuff that damaged their
>reputations or got blackballed by the big two or fell out of favor with
>fans, etc.
It could have happened. Big deal. If you're good, you'll always find work.
Life offers no guarentees.
Lance Visser
In <2ub9gc$6...@acmez.gatech.edu> gt5...@prism.gatech.edu (Patman) writes:
+> In article <2u6n6q...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, Francis A Uy <fu...@umbc.edu> wrote:
+> >Diamond Retailers Seminar, day two, part two
+> >Sunday, June 12
+> >Finally, the Big Event.
+> >8:20 Frank Miller Keynote Speech
+> >Frank begins by asking everyone to stand in toast for Don Thompson, the
+> > greatest comics fan, and Jack Kirby, the greatest comics artist. Then,
+> > like a bolt from the blue, his assault begins.
+> >"An Age has passed with Jack's death. I will not call it the Marvel Age,
+> > because I do not believe in rewarding thievery." Bam! The crowd reels.
+>Like it's Miller's place to call any age anything. *Rolls eyes*
+>Kirby forced Marvel's hand when he sued Marvel to get his artwork back.
Then it was fair that Marvel kept Jack Kirby's artwork and gave
all the rest of the artwork back?
+>Kirby's artwork was used as a bargaining chip in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was about getting the artwork back, nothing else.
+>Shooter
+>later explained how other early Marvel artists (Ditko, Ayers, etc.) had
+>their artwork returned to them once Shooter got the ball rolling. Shooter
+>stated that at early stages of Marvel, original artwork was sometimes sent
+>to the writers and not the artists for no good reason besides incompetence.
This is complete bullshit. The art was given away as freebees to
people who happened to be in the marvel offices. Some of it was walked
away with (stolen).
+>Other times, the artwork was shredded.
No artwork was every shredded at marvel to my knowledge (at least
back to 1962). Marvel dumped the art in a warehouse in New York. The
Comics Journal interviewed the person who did the first solid inventory
of the art.
+>So when Kirby sued, Marvel kept
+>the artwork until a settlement was reached.
Kirby sued because he was asked to sign a multi-page special
legal form surrendering any legal rights he may have had with regard to
marvel. After he signed the release, marvel would hand over the art.
Publically, marvel claimed that Kirby had no rights in the first
place. But they demanded he sign the papers anyway.
+>Can't remember what was
+>finally decided in the lawsuit though.
Kirby and Marvel settled out of court on undisclosed terms.
+>While Miller calls what Marvel
+>did thievery, he forgets to place context in Marvel's actions. In the
+>1960's, the artwork was work-for-hire and the pages were the property of
+>the publisher unless other arrangements were made.
Work for hire as a legal concept did not enter copyright law until
1978. Under previous law, the artists were entited to their original
artwork back. Marvel owned the content of the art, but not the art itself.
As was often the case in the 60's and before, the publisher had the talent
at their mercy. People at marvel were fired in the past for asking to
have a lawyer present during negotiations with the company.
Even under work for hire, the original art is not the property of
the company.
+>At the time, the
+>artists were happy to just be drawing comics, much less worried if they'd
+>get their artwork back. The work was work-for-hire.
At the time, many of the most talented comic artists wanted to make
it into the big-league which was things like paperback book covers. Nobody
was "happy" doing comics, it was just what many people did for a living
at the time.
The reason work-for-hire came about was that previously artists
and writers were considered freelancers so that the companies would not
have to consider them as regular workers with various benifits and at the
same time considered employees so that the company would own everything
they produced. If they were workers, then they were owed benifits. If
they were freelancers, then they had certain rights to the work they
created. The companies wanted them to be both and neither....so they
created work-for-hire.
Joe Simon came close to taking Captain america away from marvel
in 1969 based on the ambiguity in the law and creators status. The only
thing that saved marvel was that Jack Kirby stupidly trusted marvel and
was willing to give up his half of the creatorship rights to marvel.
Marvel eventually settled out of court with Simon. Jack Kirby was promised
as part of signing over his rights that he would be compensated equal
to simon in any court settlement. Marvel cheated Kirby and paid him
far less thay they paid Simon...and put an agreement in the settlement
with Simon that he could not reveal the terms of the settlement.
Object lession: Marvel cheats someone who helps them and is loyal
to them. Service to the company just doesnt matter.
+> >Frank changes his tempo, and tells a story of his youth (which may or
+> > may not be true). "Comics are weird, sure." When he was a boy, a big
+> > kid named Freddy Markham used to bully him for being small and weird.
+>So comic publishers are now bullies. Nice analogy.
Most of them are bullies.
+> >"'misconceptions.' 'the outside world.' Too many people don't know the
+> > truth about our history." Frank rails against that great infamy of
+> > comicdom, the Comics Code Authority. "What everyone doesn't remember
+> > is that Frederic Wertham *LOST*. Even in the paranoid 1950's, the
+> > United States Senate *vindicated* comics, and said comics were not to
+> > blame for juvenile delinquency."
+>Hmm...Miller's never heard of taking precautions, eh? Some lawsuits are
+>not used to win, just to put someone out of business. Marvel suing
+>Defiant over "Plasm" comes to mind...
WRONG. What is being talked about is a congressional investigation
of comic book publishing in the 1950's, not a lawsuit of any sort.
+> >"Misconceptions: our industry cringes like a battered child. 'Nobody
+> > will bother us if we apologize.' 'Warnings on the cover will protect
+> > us.' 'The storm troopers will let us go if we say we're sorry.' Let
+> > me tell you, cover advisories are NOT protection, they are a BEACON
+> > to our would-be censors. We need to stand up to Freddy Markham."
+>Yeah, sure. Any would-be censor would do just as well to pick up a
+>copy of Previews or Advance Comics catalogs where Miller *does* label
+>his books "Suggested for Mature Readers". Gee, it'd really take a lot
+>of brains to make up a list of "Mature Reader" comics. As to the labels
+>being a BEACON to the would-be censor, there are benefits of labelling.
Previews is not attached to the book itself and therefore it
is more difficult for would-be censors to make choices based on it.
+>The foremost reason for labels is to help the comics retailer. Remember
+>them?
If they are labelled in previews, then why can't the retailer
take precautions based on that?
For that matter, if you want to know if books content should be
sold to children, why not force the big distributors to rate them for
you as part of their service. They could sent out a sheet with the
order telling you if they are acceptable or not.
+>They are the ones in the front line who are trying to sell your
+>comics, trying to make ends meet, trying to provide entertainment to
+>comic fans, trying to make sure their consumer base gets the comics
+>they want? They are the ones who take the heat when something
+>inappropriate is bought by someone not mature enough to handle a
+>mature comic's content. Without the retailer, Mr. Miller, you are
+>a nobody in the comics industry.
+>There is no way a comics retailer can read every comic that comes out
+>during the week.
It is very possible however for a smart retailer to guess at books
that might have potentally mature themes and to look through them.
Or to read previews as you have suggested.
+>What if a "mature readers" comic (unlabelled) is bought
+>by a young child and their parent finds the comics and storms into the
+>store and bitches the retailer out?
You hire people to sell the books that are smart enough to prevent
this from happening. If a six year old brings up Sin City to the counter,
you dont sell it to him.
+>How does not labelling the comics help
+>the retailer out? Does a label censor a creator's output in the comic
+>medium? No, what Miller is afraid of is the marketing aspect of this
+>situation. Miller wants to his comics to sell as high a number as
+>possible...even if the comics get into the hands of children who aren't
+>mature enough to handle the contents of the comic.
In Dallas this age is considered by at least one major retailer
to be 18. Do sixteen year olds really need to be protected from Sin City?
+>Does Miller care that
+>his comics are sold to children not mature enough to handle his "Sin City"
+>stories? No. All he cares about is the bottom line: Money. He's afraid
+>that the label will limit his sales. Do children buy "Sin City"? I'd
+>be pretty sure that it's been sold to children who shouldn't have been
+>permitted to buy it at the comics store since it's not labelled "Mature
+>Readers" on the cover.
Right. Sin City is just so cheap and so appealing to a 10 year old
that they are going to buy it.
+>I'm sure Miller would say that it's the parents'
+>responsibility to make sure comic purchases are on the up and up. Let's
+>be pragmatic here: that's not always going to happen. For times like
+>these, labels help point out mature comics to retailers and they can
+>adjust their sales strategy without getting angry parents picketing their
+>stores from kneekerk reactionaries. It happens. It's real life. Deal
+>with it, Mr. Miller.
The kneejerk reactionaries are going to be picking telling you
not to sell any labelled comics. That is whole reason the PMRC wants
record labels. So that they can tell retailers "Dont carry anything '
labelled or well picket" and so they can write leases for stores that
prevent labelled material from being sold.
They want comic labels to have the same effect as the NC-17
rating does not. which is to marginallize a NC-17 movie and make it
unprofitable to produce....the net result being that the creator censors
the work until it can be considered an "R".
+> >"It's all a matter of choices, and whether we'll be left free to make
+> > them." Frank talks about his position with the Comic Book Legal Defense
+> > Fund, and gets a round of applause for Denis Kitchen (CBLDF founder).
+>Sure, make a mess and have the CBLDF clean it up.
+> >"We are in the publishing business. We sell *books*. Bookstores don't
+> > put warnings on the covers of novels. Book publishers don't read a
+> > manuscript and ask 'Will this rate an R?' Cover advisories will move
+> > us away from the safety of publishing."
+>Well, in this country, comics are marketed predominatedly towards kids.
+>By their very nature, comics tend to be easy to read and comprehended by
+>kids.
So is the record industry, but that does not mean that a systematic
system of labels is need there anymore than comics.
+>It's natural for kids to be told stories through the combination
+>of words and pictures. When you create comics, the art will attract young
+>readers that may or may not be mature enough to handle mature themes in
+>the comics. Is it asking too much for an advisory label? No one is
+>telling what stories you can and can't write/draw. No one is censoring
+>your comic book output. All that retailers want is something that lets
+>them know that some books should be sold to "mature readers" in order
+>for the books to get into the intended audience.
The problem with labels is that they make it easy for pressure
groups to prevent books that dont meet their standards from being sold.
If you put the "mature readers" label on the books, there are stores already
that will either put the books behind the counter or treat them like
pornography.
Lone Star, a major comics chain in Dallas refuses to sell many
issues of Cerebus to people under 18! "18" is not protecting children, its
keeping the books from being read. They give the same treatment to a variety
of other books.
+>I think Miller is
+>still bitter about the treatment he received while in Hollywood doing
+>the Robocop sequels (which translated poorly to the big screen anyway).
+>I think Miller should have amended his statement to: "We sell *books*
+>to kids and adults, we have a responsibilty to make sure the books make
+>it to their intended audience."
What you do with labels is give retailers and local pressure groups
a way to tell the books they want "out" of the stores. Any book labeled
is going to get put into a "special" rack away from other books in the
store in many cases and sell poorer....just as NC-17 movies get less
visibility than "R" movies.
+> >Frank then mounts a defense of Neal Adams, calling him a hero and a
+> > visionary. He fought for artist's rights. "In the early days, at least
+> > one publisher routinely shredded original art as a matter of policy.
+> > Often, the completed art pages were given back -- to the *writer*.
+> > Neal Adams taught us that company loyalty is an oxymoron."
+>Yep, that was the standard practice at the time, and the artists put up
+>with the system until Neal got fed up with it. But it wasn't malice on
+>the part of the publishers, it was just the way things were.
Neal got fed up with it and demanded his original art back...and
got it. He got it back because he was not afraid to lose his job. You
can't just say that "its the way things are", there is a reason why
practices evolve. Not returning original art was part of publishers
systematically ignoring the legal rights of freelancers.
+> >Next on the chopping block is Jim Shooter, and his attempt to rewrite
+> > the history of creator's rights. "I knew Jim Shooter wrote this title
+> > called Legion of Super Heroes, but I didn't know he was Duo Damsel."
+> > POW! A roaring mixture of cheers, laughs & outrage fills the room.
+>And Shooter gave his side of the creator's rights issue. Remember,
+>Shooter was editor-in-chief at Marvel. He only was respsonsible for
+>the creative output of Marvel comics. He wasn't responsible for the
+>policies that existed before he got to Marvel.
He was responsible for firing and/or demoting every single
writer/editor working at marvel at the time he became editor in
chief. He was responsible for enforcing a tight house-style on marvel
artists that corresponded to what he wanted to see out of art.
He did drive John Byrne from the company because he was angry that
one of his "work-for-hire" people was also doing superman for DC.
Marvel started returning original artwork under shooter because
there were going to be class-actions lawsuits if they did not.
The page rates at marvel went up in tandum with DC's because
both companies realized that they were too low to retain any sort of
talent for the long term.
Shooter's "royalty" plan for marvel books was a sad joke.
+>He did try to make it
+>better for freelancers who did work for Marvel while he was there.
More like he took credit for any changes at marvel while he
was there, whatever the reason they were put into place. He bullied
freelancers and fired them at will. He hated Gene Day's art style and
kept trying to force him into the "shooter" style of art.
Roy Thomas singlehandedly brought Conan to marvel and developed
it as a book. Roy thomas was the second writer for marvel in the 60's.
Roy Thomas is one of the nicest people in the industry. Roy Thomas was
driven out of marvel by Jim Shooter.
+>Shooter understood the meaing of work-for-hire, why didn't Miller?
+>Maybe Miller started at the wrong comic publisher. Maybe Miller should
+>remember the context in which he was employed at Marvel. Again, the
+>applause from the crowd made it apparent to me that retailers can be
+>led all too easily. Just look at their ordering habits. Too many
+>retailers take things at face value and believe the hype.
You seem to think that people should accept everything a publisher
does to them as just part of "work for hire". When publishers treat people
badly, the people who worked for them have every right to yell about it.
+> >"Marvel Comics thinks that fans are so stupid they can't tell good books
+> > from bad. But they can be forgiven this, since their sales aren't
+> > leaving in droves, like the talent is." This shot gets all cheers,
+> > except for a few tables near the front. Gee, who's sitting there?
+>And yet, Marvel does continue to produce comics with their characters
+>month after month, dependent on freelancers to carry on the comic-based
+>adventures of their characters. To me, "work-for-hire" and "creator-
+>owned" comics shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive as Miller would
+>lead you to be. Spider-Man was there before McFarlane got there and he
+>continues to be published with the work of freelancers now. All McFarlane
+>can do is play musical issue numbers with his creation, Spawn. Yeah,
+>if that's the best of creator-owned comics, I'll take Spider-Man all
+>the time.
But McFarlane is doing what he wants to do with Spawn without
editors telling him what stories he can and cannot do or a company demanding
that he stick wolverine, ghost rider or punisher on every third cover.
If Spawn is in the middle of a good run, I will buy it. Same for spider-man.
I have no long-term loyalty left with any marvel title or character
because there is no long-term consistancy in characters anyway. The whole
book can change from writer to writer anyway. Whole histories of characters
are erased at the whim of a writer. Characters are brought back from the
dead or killed at the whim of editors.
Look at Jim Shooter. He makes a big deal out of demanding the
"death" of Jean Grey in X-men 137, then a couple years later he raises
her from the dead and the whole original story ceases to mean anything.
If Chris Clarmont had any control over the characters, this would not
have happened.
+> >But Frank, didn't you used to work for Marvel? He answers the unspoken
+> > question. "I knew the rules coming in the door. They can fire you
+> > whenever they want. It doesn't matter if the title is popular. Ask
+> > Chris Claremont, ask Louise Simonson, ask Jo Duffy." Cheering fills
+> > the room again.
+>Ooo...the real world rears its ugly head in comics. People get fired
+>everyday in the US. It's not a new concept. The boss gets to fired
+>anyone he/she wants to without due cause.
Most people who are hugely sucessful in their work and generate
huge amounts for the company over a period of years dont expect to get
fired at random. Chris Claremont built wolverine and the x-men into
monsterous money-makers for marvel. Yet, they get rid of him....in part
because he has done too good a job and they dont need him anymore. The
fan-boys will buy the book regardless.
You would think that marvel would want to retain the people who'
created lets say Punisher, Deathlok or Wolverine. No. They dont want
them involved at all. The characters are good enough that they can
fire at will and hire anyone regardless of talent to pump out "product".
+> >"I love Sin City. I write it. I draw it. There will be no fill-in
+> > issues. I can make that promise, because I *own* Sin City."
+>"Hmm...and if I'm like Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee, I can farm out the
+>stories of my creation if I want to since I own the characters and
+>I can *gasp* use work-for-hire to continue the further adventures of
+>my creations if I so choose." All that's changed is that Miller gets
+>a bigger piece of the pie with creator-owned projects. That's it.
That is a very big "it". The other thing that the existance of
image adds to the market is that it proves that anyone with enough talent
can set up their own company and compete with the big publishers.
Neither marvel or DC would EVER allow something creator-owned
like lets say Wildcats to be published under anything like lets say
epic. They would want Jim Lee to stay drawing X-men until they didn;t
need him anymore.
There is always going to be a place for freelancers in the business.
What Image does, if nothing else, is shows people in the industry that
they dont need the big publishers at all if they want to do something
themselves.
+> >"At Marvel, Todd McFarlane and the talented circus [...] were the best
+> > paid creators in the industry. But they knew that the best they could
+> > achieve is the status of well-paid servants. So they quit. And even
+> > better, they all quit *at once*."
+>Not a really ballsy move since even if the Image gang failed, they'd
+>still get jobs elsewhere since they are *perceived* to have talent.
Talent means nothing to the industry. If a company doesn't
like you, they dont have to hire you. These people were some of the
highest paid people in comics. They took a huge financial and personal
risk in forming image which paid off.
+>No one at Marvel was pointing a gun and told them they must work for
+>a work-for-hire system. They did it because they made a living at
+>doing comics. Since Marvel wasn't going to change their mode of
+>operation, they did what any sane person would do. They left. Big
+>deal. What's wrong with work-for-hire?
There is nothing wrong with work-for-hire as long as the company
also offers some other form of publishing as well that is not a fraud and
that offers the same level of compensation as work-for-hire would.
Look at Epic and ask why so few of the truely popular marvel creators
didn't "jump" at the chance to do work for Epic. They didn't do it
because marvel had designed Epic with enough dis-incentives to make
doing books under their banner pay less than work-for-hire.
+>The overwhelming majority of
+>the employees in the US work under the work-for-hire system.
+>What makes
+>working in comics so special that each and every comics creator must do
+>creator-owned projects to survive? If you can create characters that lead
+>to grand licensing and merchandising deals, more power to you, don't begrudge
+>your success one bit, but don't say creator-owned is the only way to go.
+>
+> >So Marvel shook its head and said 'they'll be back.' "And I'm sure that
+> > as they lay in bed at night, they asked themselves 'did we just make
+> > the mistake of our lives?'"
+>Any big change like that in one's life would make anyone think that.
+>What an astute observation.
+> >But Image succeeded, wildly. And Frank wants to know why people hate
+> > them so much. "The number one comic is creator owned, so why isn't
+> > every artist in the industry celebrating?" He steps back, pausing for
+> > the required applause. And it is there.
+>Could it be because Todd is such a jerk? Nah....
Could it be that a true marvel zombie would realize this
+>Also, with this bout of musical issue numbering, I doubt Spawn is
+>currying any brownie points with retailers. Creator-owned comics
+>lead to excesses from their creators once the ego's get out of control.
+> >"They inspired Legend, Bravura, and more to come."
+>So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel?
First and Eclipse. The only reason for Epic was to try and
draw good properties away from smaller publishers.
+>What's the big
+>deal? Independent and small press comics are full of creator-owned
+>projects. So Image managed to capture market share in the current
+>comics industry. Where will these Image comics be in 5, 10, 15, 20
+>years? Will WildCATS be here in 2 years from now? Judging from
+>Stormwatch 25, no. Will Spawn be here in 10 years? Unless Spawn
+>gets a new power source, I doubt it he'll exist in his present
+>incarnation. Will there be more than 100 issues of Spawn in 10 years?
+>I highly doubt it based on McFarlane's track record. Will there be
+>120 issues of Superman in the next 10 years? I think there is a high
+>possibility there will be. Many of these creator-driven lines of comics
+>are transient. A mini-series here, one there. Who will care in 2 years'
+>time? When will Shadowhawk die of AIDS? Within 6 years as the average
+>bout with HIV would suggest?
Will any of this really matter to anyone? No retailer I know thinks
much past a year in the future anyway. Does any marvel title look even
remotely like it did 10 years ago, can any of the characters be said to
have had consistant development? I would say no.
+> >"It's a scary time, because change is always scary. But the pieces are
+> > all in place." The comics industry can become better than ever. And
+> > I believe him. A huge standing ovation ensues.
+>It won't get better due to Image comics being the fine, upstanding
+>comics publisher that it pretends to be. The comics industry will
+>get better once comic publishers get their act together and bear
+>responsibility for their solicitations and put out quality comics
+>on time. To Todd McFarlane, "responsibility" is a 4-letter word.
+>To Frank Miller, "Mature reader" is the mark of death for a comic
+>in the direct market. Would "Sin City" even be carried on the
+>newsstands if there was no direct market? No way in hell.
+>Miller doesn't understand how lucky he is to be a creator in a direct market
+>scenario. There is no way he'd be scolding Marvel if the direct market
+>didn't exist. He'd still be a "well-paid servant". Take some
+>responsibility for the survival for the direct market, Mr. Miller.
+>Thinking labels only light the way for would-be censors is the easy
+>way to avoid responsibilty for your work. No wonder you're so gung-ho
+>on the CBLDF. Care to do the right thing? Keep the direct
+>market healthy. Label your work so retailers can continue to sell your
+>work to the appropriate audience.
Michael Sullivan
> Michael Sullivan <sull...@fa.disney.com> wrote:
>
> >Image dropped those folks' titles, not Frank Miller. I don't see how
> >hypocrisy enters into it.
>
> Here is the hypocrisy: Miller holds Image as a good thing in comics
> since it's supposedly creator-driven. The point being that that people in
> comics get fired everyday and there doesn't have to be a good reason
> for it. So when Marvel (that big, bad bully) fires off the popular
> creators off their respective books, Miller says that's a bad thing that
> happens with work-for-hire. Now Miller goes on to say Image is this
> great thing that happened to the comics industry since their emphasis is
> on creator-owned comics. Well, here I point out that Image did their own
> share of firing popular creators with no real good rationale given. Now
> to me, having Miller say Image is good and Marvel is bad when they do the
> same exact thing with regards to firings is hypocritical. If you don't
But its the creators doing the hiring, the firing, and the money making.
That's the difference between Image and Marvel/DC. The artists are in
the driver's seat.
> >Again, you're equating Image with Frank Miller and there's no reason for it.
>
> Sure there is. I do so because of Miller's comments that Image is what the
> comics industry needs and that being a creator-driven publisher is the
> way to go in the future. I will always point out that Image wants
> to become Marvel Comics in the worst way (again I'm paraphrasing John Byrne).
>
> Does Miller realize that by supporting Image, he supports the Marvel way as
> well? I don't think so. That is Miller's blind spot. Miller is so enamored
The Marvel way is not creator-owned. When Image dropped those titles, the
artists were free to go elsewhere with them, and many did. If Marvel drops
a title, what happens then? The title gets dropped. Image is, after all,
a business and they have to run it like a business, just like Marvel and DC.
Again, though, it's artists who are running the business.
David R. Henry
>> Here is the hypocrisy: Miller holds Image as a good thing in comics
>> since it's supposedly creator-driven.
>But its the creators doing the hiring, the firing, and the money making.
>That's the difference between Image and Marvel/DC. The artists are in
>the driver's seat.
Well, that explains why it was alright for Liefeld to kick Mike Grell off
of Shaman's Tears, then.
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club // Dinotopia is a state of mind. Grwwwwrr?
Obessa Cantauit. -- Richard Darwin / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS // Thanks... for the memories.--Rogue
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
David R. Henry
> I have no long-term loyalty left with any marvel title or character
>because there is no long-term consistancy in characters anyway. The whole
>book can change from writer to writer anyway. Whole histories of characters
>are erased at the whim of a writer. Characters are brought back from the
>dead or killed at the whim of editors.
>
> Look at Jim Shooter. He makes a big deal out of demanding the
>"death" of Jean Grey in X-men 137, then a couple years later he raises
>her from the dead and the whole original story ceases to mean anything.
>If Chris Clarmont had any control over the characters, this would not
>have happened.
If Claremont had any control over the characters, Jean Grey would have
ended up with a psychic lobotomy instead of being dead on the moon, and
the X-Men would still be chilling their heels in Australia. Not all things
editors do are bad.
And what Shooter did in demanding the death of Jean Grey was very good, in
that it produced the best issue of the X-Men ever produced. But it wasn't
Shooter who wanted her back from the dead. That was an idea that started
with Kurt Busiek, actually, and it was the brain trust behind X-Factor
becoming a series that pushed for it.
> Most people who are hugely sucessful in their work and generate
>huge amounts for the company over a period of years dont expect to get
>fired at random. Chris Claremont built wolverine and the x-men into
>monsterous money-makers for marvel. Yet, they get rid of him....in part
>because he has done too good a job and they dont need him anymore. The
>fan-boys will buy the book regardless.
Claremont was also having difficulties (to put the word mildly) with Bob
Harras, his then current editor on the X-titles. As with a lot of decisions,
faults lay on both sides on Claremont's firing.
> Neither marvel or DC would EVER allow something creator-owned
>like lets say Wildcats to be published under anything like lets say
>epic. They would want Jim Lee to stay drawing X-men until they didn;t
>need him anymore.
Speaking of Claremont :-), wasn't it right here on rac.misc that I heard
confirmation that DC is going to let him have a creator-owned comic book,
but that will take place directly in DC's main continuity?
> There is nothing wrong with work-for-hire as long as the company
>also offers some other form of publishing as well that is not a fraud and
>that offers the same level of compensation as work-for-hire would.
Why _must_ a company provide something besides work-for-hire? I admit,
yes, it would be a nice thing to have otherwise, and it certainly would
be an enlightened attitude towards comic publishing, but why _must_ they
provide that option?
"God creates dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. God creates man. Man kills
God. Man creates dinosaurs."
"Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherets the earth." --J.Park
John P. LaRocque
> Roy Thomas singlehandedly brought Conan to marvel and developed
>it as a book. Roy thomas was the second writer for marvel in the 60's.
>Roy Thomas is one of the nicest people in the industry. Roy Thomas was
>driven out of marvel by Jim Shooter.
[ Is this *the* "Nazi Visser of the SDPA"? ]
Actually, this is not entirely true. Martin Goodman (Marvel's publisher)
wanted to diversify the Marvel line, and wanted the additon of a fantasy
comic. Gil Kane suggested REH's Conan to Roy Thomas, and the rest is
history. It is true, though. THere would be no Conan comics without
Thomas.
A more complete history can be found in Conan Classics #1-#3
(brand new Marvel reprints of the classic Conan the Barbarian title).
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
Michael Sullivan
>
> Well, that explains why it was alright for Liefeld to kick Mike Grell off
> of Shaman's Tears, then.
But Grell is free to take Shaman's Tears to any publisher he can. If it
was Marvel-owned instead of Grell-owned, he couldn't do that. Image chose
not to publish it but another company can if Grell can find one.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> But McFarlane is doing what he wants to do with Spawn without
> editors telling him what stories he can and cannot do or a company demanding
> that he stick wolverine, ghost rider or punisher on every third
>cover.
It was McFarlane who was sticking Wolvie, Ghost rider et al. into every
issue of adjectiveless Spider Man. His editor had little say in that.
> There is nothing wrong with work-for-hire as long as the company
> also offers some other form of publishing as well that is not a fraud and
> that offers the same level of compensation as work-for-hire would.
> Look at Epic and ask why so few of the truely popular marvel creators
> didn't "jump" at the chance to do work for Epic. They didn't do it
> because marvel had designed Epic with enough dis-incentives to make
> doing books under their banner pay less than work-for-hire.
I can't speak for the financial incentives offered at Epic, but lots of
top marvel creators did some work for Epic Illustrated (and later for
Epic). Of the top of my head Archie Goodwin, Mary Jo Duffy (both also
on the Epic editorial staff), Chris Claremont, Barry Windsor Smith, Jim
Starlin, John Byrne, Terry Austin, Bill Sienkwicz, Walt Simonson, J.M.
DeMatteis, Berni Wrightson even (recently) PAD and George Perez etc.
Not to mention creative talents who wouldn't normally do much Marvel
work like Boris Vallejo, Scott Hampton, Kent Williams, Jon J Muth,
Richard Corben, Dave Sim, John Bolton, Rick Veitch etc.
> +> >"They inspired Legend, Bravura, and more to come."
> +>So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel?
>
> First and Eclipse.
That doesn't seem correct. First hadn't even started up when Epic
Illustrated started. Eclipse may have been around, but just barely.
The Epic line came later, but that was only after EI had proved to be a
success and at least one ongoing strip there (Dreadstar) had proved
popular enough to justify its own comic. [ And when Dreadstar started,
Eclipse and First were still small. Besides, First didn't always offer
creator ownership : both Badger and Nexus were company properties,
which they bought from Capitol.]
Abhijit
james s burdo
> David R. Henry (dhe...@plains.NoDak.edu) wrote:
> >
> > Well, that explains why it was alright for Liefeld to kick Mike Grell
off
> > of Shaman's Tears, then.
>
> But Grell is free to take Shaman's Tears to any publisher he can. If it
> was Marvel-owned instead of Grell-owned, he couldn't do that. Image
chose
> not to publish it but another company can if Grell can find one.
>
ignores McFarlane's self-serving attacks on Grell's professionalism.
Jim Burdo
Holy Moley!
>Michael Sullivan wrote:
>>But its the creators doing the hiring, the firing, and the money making.
>>That's the difference between Image and Marvel/DC.
>
>of Shaman's Tears, then.
But Mike Grell was NOT kicked OFF of Shaman's Tears!
Grell still owns Shaman's Tears, but it's just not being published
at Image. Well, it doesn't seem to be published by anybody, but
Grell still owns it... =)
--m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as it's hot and wet and goes down the right way it's fine with me.
-- The Duchess of York, Fergie, on tea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please direct hate mail, love letters, or e-mail to: milk...@ufcc.ufl.edu
Glenn Carnagey
>vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>> Abhijit (?)
>>> So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel?
>>
>> First and Eclipse.
>
>That doesn't seem correct. First hadn't even started up when Epic
>Illustrated started. Eclipse may have been around, but just barely.
>The Epic line came later, but that was only after EI had proved to be a
>success and at least one ongoing strip there (Dreadstar) had proved
>popular enough to justify its own comic. [ And when Dreadstar started,
>Eclipse and First were still small. Besides, First didn't always offer
>creator ownership : both Badger and Nexus were company properties,
>which they bought from Capitol.]
I think you're right, Abhijit. First and Eclipse both started early
'83, I believe. The Eclipse graphic album series started in late '78,
but that doesn't seem relevant to the context. DNAgents and the other
new material, and the things they picked up from Pacific, all started
in '83. (Actually, someone should ask Mark Evanier, I think we could
take his word for it. :-) Epic Illustrated began in the Spring of '80,
I'd say Heavy Metal was a bigger inspiration, as well as things like
Cerebus (12/77) and Elfquest ('78), etc., but to a much lesser degree.
Their impact was larger than their circulation would imply, but it was
only part of the equation. I seem to recall reading somewhere that
Archie Goodwin and Jo Duffy were the prime movers in the creation of
EI, I'm not sure of that, though. In 1980, Sword and Sorcery Fantasy
was hugely popular, and that's probably the chief inspiration. The
creator ownership would probably have been due mostly to Neal Adams'
influence, although Sim was already harping on it in Cerebus -- but it
required also the sympathy or at least the grudging assent of Stan
Lee, Jim Shooter, and Archie Goodwin. There couldn't have been too
much pressure on them to do so. Does anyone know for sure that Epic
Illustrated published creator-owned properties at it's onset? I
believe it did, but I couldn't confirm it.
Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"It was all weird names and shit, I can't remember any of that stuff."
--- Grant Morrison
g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know
......................................................................
Glenn Carnagey
>vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>> Abhijit (?)
>>> So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel?
>>
>> First and Eclipse.
>
>That doesn't seem correct. First hadn't even started up when Epic
>Illustrated started. Eclipse may have been around, but just barely.
>The Epic line came later, but that was only after EI had proved to be a
>success and at least one ongoing strip there (Dreadstar) had proved
>popular enough to justify its own comic. [ And when Dreadstar started,
>Eclipse and First were still small. Besides, First didn't always offer
>creator ownership : both Badger and Nexus were company properties,
>which they bought from Capitol.]
I think you're right, Abhijit. First and Eclipse both started early
Abhiji...@transarc.com
gr...@wimpy.cpe.uchicago.edu (Glenn Carnagey) writes:
> >>
> >> First and Eclipse.
> >
> >That doesn't seem correct. First hadn't even started up when Epic
> >Illustrated started. Eclipse may have been around, but just barely.
> ... I seem to recall reading somewhere that
> Archie Goodwin and Jo Duffy were the prime movers in the creation of
> EI, I'm not sure of that, though.
Goodwin and Duffy were on the editorial staff of EI, and I'm willing
to bet they (especially Goodwin) pushed for it. Starlin might have
something to do with it too.
>Does anyone know for sure that Epic
> Illustrated published creator-owned properties at it's onset?
Definitely. Starlin's Dreadstar ran in EI 1-6. Veitch published tons of
stuff in early EI and it was creator owned (and he was actually quite
pleased with EI, or so he said in a Maximortal letter column).
Incidentally, First started publishing in April or so of 1983, and the
original idea was conceived in 1981. [ I picked up some early issues
of Warp yesterday, which was First's first comic.]
Abhijit
DG CHI
Abhiji...@transarc.com writes:
vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> Look at Epic and ask why so few of the truely popular marvel
creators
> didn't "jump" at the chance to do work for Epic. They didn't do it
> because marvel had designed Epic with enough dis-incentives to make
> doing books under their banner pay less than work-for-hire.
In a word: "WRONG!"
We had top people working and lined up to do stuff at Epic, both
because of Archie Goodwin's reputation for fairness, and our overall
track record for technically excellent production values and a
nurturing of creative talent. At one time, Epic's creator owned deal
was not only about the best in the biz (I'm talking in comparison to
others), it was the only *consistent* one regarding regular payments.
The fact that Marvel has chosen to not toot its horn or use its
imprint to any good in the in-between years does not detract from
what the imprint once accomplished or offered.
But hey, I'm subjective.
D.G. Chichester
Lance Visser
>vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
+>> +>So? Who inspired the Epic line of comics at Marvel?
+>>
+>> First and Eclipse.
+>That doesn't seem correct. First hadn't even started up when Epic
+>Illustrated started.
I draw a distiction between Epic Illustrated and the Epic line of
comics which did start closer to the First/Eclipse timeframe.
Thinking about it, I should have included pacific also since pacific's
existance/policies (creator ownership, royalties) were a big influence
at the point in question in general.
I always thought that Epic Illustrated was an attempt by marvel
to move into the Warren/Heavy metal magazine format which was very different
than the probable motives for creating the epic line.
+>Eclipse may have been around, but just barely.
+>The Epic line came later, but that was only after EI had proved to be a
+>success and at least one ongoing strip there (Dreadstar) had proved
+>popular enough to justify its own comic. [ And when Dreadstar started,
+>Eclipse and First were still small.
Eclipse did publish the first Dreadstar extended story as a graphic
novel (the price) which marvel later reprinted as an epic special.
+>Besides, First didn't always offer
+>creator ownership : both Badger and Nexus were company properties,
+>which they bought from Capitol.]
Michael Sullivan
Loss of momentum? How many issues went out? Two? If it's a good book,
it'll survive--regardless of what anybody says about it.