Kirkman's soap box

[Dr.Volt]

Have you guys watched what's being called Robert Kirkman's manifesto:  http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17705

If not it's worth watching.  He essentially says there needs to be more creator owned comic stories in order to save the industry.  There's actually more details than that.  Well...maybe you should just go watch it....

What do you think?  Is Kirkman right?  I definitely agree with him on many points...especially kids and the future are concerned.  Heck I've been saying that for a while that comics in general are excluding kids left and right.  And like it or not...kids are the future of the industry.  Most of us got into comics as kids.  And now, we still like 'em...and for many of us they hold many valuable memories.  On the other hand, I think maybe Kirkman is over simplifying the answer.  I'm not sure if a blanketing rejection of big 2 the answer.  But I do think the industry as a whole has lost it's focus.  Anyhow...what think ye???

[zuludelta]

Interesting vid, I saw it when it first came out a couple of weeks ago.

In principle, I agree with a lot of what Kirkman is saying, he's definitely a guy who loves the medium and I can't help but be moved by his earnest dedication to it (swearing off Marvel and DC work, which is as close to an assured paycheck as there is in the comics industry, to work exclusively on his own stuff takes some dedication).

I do disagree to some degree with the fundamental premise in his argument, though.

One of his main points, I think, boils down to the following: Marvel and DC are largely catering to an aging demographic and aren't really attracting new and/or younger readers, and this trend is affecting the rest of the comics industry.

Though I haven't seen any recent numbers to back up this assertion, I'm willing to bet it's partly true, judging by the number and the appearance of the people I see visiting the various comic shops I've been to in North America and the apparent age of the people who populate comic book forums. On the other hand, I don't see how putting out more creator-owned comics will directly reverse that trend.

New and/or younger readers will gravitate towards comics when there are more comics out there that appeal to them, regardless of whether they're being published by Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, Oni, Slave Labor Graphics, or some small self-publishing concern. If anything, Marvel and DC are in a superior position to get kids/new readers to read comics since they already have the the marketing cachet and multimedia presence in place. I think Kirkman is making the assumption that more creator-owned comics automatically means that there will be more diversity and better quality in the material in the market (and by extension more all ages/atypical comics material that kids/non-comics readers will want to read) but I don't think those two things necessarily follow from each other. What I can see happening is that instead of Marvel and DC re-hashing the same old superhero shenanigans for the umpteenth time, we'll instead see "indie" creators trying to recreate their own versions of "Invincible," "Owlie," "Mouse Guard," "Love and Rockets," "Blankets," or "American Splendour" or any number of creator-owned successes, and I don't see that drawing in new long-term readers any more successfully than your typically well-marketed and hyped DC/Marvel "event" comic or publicity stunt.

Innovation in entertainment is a rare thing, and a switch from corporate publishing to small press, creator-owned publishing won't necessarily result in more novel and all-ages friendly ideas seeing print.

Sure, comics such as those published by Marvel and DC are perhaps restricted creatively because of the corporate and editorial pressures that dictate how their properties are used, but many creator-owned comics also suffer from a lack of polished craft, little to no professional editing, weak marketing, and a paucity of distribution channels, and that's just as bad as DC and Marvel creative teams drawing from the same originality-dry well time and time again. 

The "problem" isn't who is doing the publishing and who owns the characters being published, the "problem" is the quality and craft of what is getting published. The best-selling creator-owned titles like "Invincible," "Naruto," "Hellboy," "Berserk," "Fruits Basket," or the Buffy-verse titles sell well (and occasionally outsell Marvel and DC, particularly in the trade paperback/graphic novel arena) not because there is some inherent attribute in being creator-owned that makes them good, they sell well because they're competently written, drawn, edited, and marketed and they've been fortunate enough to attract a segment of the market, similar to the best-selling titles that Marvel and DC have to offer.

Many readers flock to Marvel and DC despite the relative stagnancy and blandness of many of the stories because they are at least assured of a minimal level of professional craft in the work, innovation (or lack thereof) aside. Relatively few creator-owned works outside of the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph can boast of the same.

The industry dichotomy that needs addressing isn't "creator-owned comics vs. DC/Marvel comics"... the more important divide that needs concern the industry is the one between mediocre/poorly crafted comics and well crafted comics. There's just not a lot of stuff out there (Marvel, DC, or "indie") that people who aren't already fans of the medium are interested in reading. And for the industry to expand, creators just have to put out material that can compete with the rest of the entertainment world, regardless if that material features Spider-Man, Superman, or a creator-owned character.       

[Podmark]

There was a really good response I read a few weeks back to Kirkman. It can be found here:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17785

[Previsionary]

Kirkman swore off Marvel? *hidden smile*

While he may have an interesting idea, what's his excuse for when Marvel and DC both took chances at interesting new ideas and comics to grab the younger generation (and I'm ignoring archie comics and the other companies as no one really talks about them...ever)? That's why the ultimate verse, marvel age, and all those one shots that ultimately went nowhere came out in the first place. And how exactly do we explain all those good books that hit all ages that aren't getting any readership now like the X-men first class line or Spider-girl? I don't think there's a single effect at play here. Kids, in general, don't read as much, but readership seems to spike every time a movie comes out or an event happens (or is featured in the news). I think comic companies need to start hitting the general public now by selling some of their general books at newsstands and other stores instead of just specialized shops. At least then more people have an opportunity to get them since comic shops aren't exactly prominent in the U.S. or even outside of the U.S.

Alas, Joe Q tried to get younger readers in his own misguided way...it just kinda didn't make sense...at all.

[zuludelta]

I think comic companies need to start hitting the general public now by selling some of their general books at newsstands and other stores instead of just specialized shops. At least then more people have an opportunity to get them since comic shops aren't exactly prominent in the U.S. or even outside of the U.S.

Yeah, any discussion about "saving comics" is incomplete without bringing up issues of distribution. The direct market (comic specialty shops) have helped keep the medium alive in North America, but it's also kept it from expanding to larger markets, since direct market shops don't really cater to a large population. That's beginning to change with "regular" book stores starting to carry trade paperbacks and graphic novels but they really need to explore getting distributed at supermarkets, newsstands, and general stores again like back in the day.

If that means running more ads and going back to cheaper stock paper or digest formats so that they can be priced competitively alongside fare like magazines, tabloids, and digest compilations like Shonen Jump and Archie Double Digest, so be it, I say. Publishers who can afford to do so can publish twin versions of their better-selling titles like they did back in the 1980s: a more expensive direct market/specialty version with fewer ads and printed on better paper, and a cheaper newsstand edition for distribution in non-specialty venues such as newsstands and supermarkets.   

Comic book publishers also need an alternative to Diamond Comic Distributors to get their product out there. DCD has a monopoly and stranglehold on the comics distribution industry in North America, and they pretty much dictate what gets sold in comic book shops, reinforcing the status quo with regards to diversity of market content.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I totally agree about comics being more available (newstands, drugstores...Spinner racks need to come back!).

I'm not sure "The Ultimates" was ever fit for children to read (maybe "Ultimate" Spider-Man is, though)...Isn't "Ultimates" a bit too adult?

Dana

[Previsionary]

I said "Ultimate verse"...which includes Ultimates, yes. The universe was created to remove continuity and bring in more readers as everything would be "fresh" and open to change. Not exactly young kids, but kids in the preteen-late teen (and above) developmental period. Ultimate Spidey, X-men, Adventures, Fan 4, Ironman, and most other ult. books fit directly into that niche. Ultimates fluctuates depending on the writer, but it's still mostly a teen book until recently when it became a bit more graphic under Loeb's pen.

EDIT:

Sir Zulu, The Ultimate X-men line actually "was" pulling in more readers than mainstream X-men for a few years. It just recently started to fall off into the danger zone a few years ago. It got to a pretty bad point when Kirkman came onto it and it'll probably get much worse after Ultimatum.

[zuludelta]

I'm not sure "The Ultimates" was ever fit for children to read (maybe "Ultimate" Spider-Man is, though)...Isn't "Ultimates" a bit too adult?

The Ultimate line wasn't targeted towards kids... it was initially meant to entice potential readers who had little to no interest in the "regular" Marvel comic books, regardless of their age. Unfortunately, the readership for the Ultimate books ended up overlapping with the same market as the one for the regular Marvel books. Outside of maybe Ultimate Spidey and Ultimates, the Ultimate line wasn't really pulling in a lot of new readers... long-time comics readers were just buying them alongside their regular titles.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I am aware that you said "Ultimate 'verse", Prev...I was totally not dissing you and I meant no offense.

IMHO, I'd rather see good writing and artisitic talents devoted to making the main Marvel Universe readable...As opposed to churning thinly-disquised rehashes of older stories in alternate universes. 

Dana

[zuludelta]

Sir Zulu, The Ultimate X-men line actually "was" pulling in more readers than mainstream X-men for a few years. It just recently started to fall off into the danger zone a few years ago. It got to a pretty bad point when Kirkman came onto it and it'll probably get much worse after Ultimatum.

Ah, okay.

Good thing you brought up Archie Comics, cause they seem to be dismissed too easily (or entirely ignored) when it comes to industry discussions.

I don't really buy into the notion that people these days just aren't interested in reading comics. They're not reading superhero comics, apparently, but they're reading some sort of printed sequential art in sizable numbers.

I mean, look at Archie comics sales. The pamphlets (single issues) sell just about as bad as DC's and Marvel's (anywhere from 10 000 to 30 000 copies a month for their core titles). But they routinely sell 80 000 to 100 000 copies a month of their "Archie's Double Digest" and "Archie's Pals & Gals Double Digest" titles. Those numbers beat just about any current superhero hero title outside of the top 5 and are at least 6 times the monthly sales of the best-selling TPBs and graphic novels (which have a comparative page count).

Viz Media's "Shonen Jump" digest magazine (which reprints translated manga serials in an anthology format) has an estimated monthly sales of 215 000 copies a month in the US alone, about twice that of the best-selling monthly superhero titles, and about 15 times that of the best-selling TPBs and graphic novels.

The Archie digests don't feature creator-owned characters. Shonen Jump features a mix of creator-owned and company-owned serials. In terms of subject material, they are about as disparate as you can get. What they do have in common, though, is a high page count (the Archie digests average 112 pages an issue, Shonen Jump averages between 400 to 600 pages an issue), relatively low publication cost (they're printed on cheaper paper and Shonen Jump is printed in black and white) and a distribution system that isn't tied to the direct market and the Diamond Comic Distributors system (both the digests and Shonen Jump are found in toy stores, supermarkets, and newsstands along with comic book specialty shops).   

The fact that Kirkman says that he can make a comfortable living off of "Invincible" TPB sales just further reinforces the notion that it may not be a lack of creator-ownership that's ailing the superhero comics industry as much as it is a question of publishing and packaging the comics in the proper format. Publishers like Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, and many of the small press entities we usually associate with the comics industry have been slow to adopt more feasible publishing schemes by insisting on pushing pamphlets onto a market that is growing increasingly disinterested in the 22 pages a month model. 

[Previsionary]

Dana, I didn't think you were dissing me. I was clarifying in case there was some possible confusion and also expanding my answer by showing that the Ultimate line hovers around the teen niche, but it does overlap with mainstream marvel as Zulu pointed out. I also agree with the pricing arguments because if I had a choice between a (hypothetically speaking) $8 graphic novel/manga and a $3 book, I think I'd go with the one that offered more pages and would last longer especially if money was an issue as it likely is in today's time. Also, with current books, I can't guarantee I'll be happy spending $3 on a book anymore.

Anyway, some creators have weighed in and you can see some of those here:

Morrison: I suppose I'm slightly amused by the reformer's zeal with which each new generation approaches the problem of 'saving' comics. It reminds me of humanity's charming, self-regarding notion that it's our job to 'save' a planet which has survived fine without us through several mass extinction events, climactic overhauls and planetary disasters.

I've been listening to people talk about 'saving' the 'industry' for over 20 years while comics have continued to be published and have, in fact, become better, to the point where the only conclusion I've come to is that comics are best 'saved' by sealing them in Mylar bags! Everything else is just messianic inflation. Just do good books and stop trying to be the savior of a whole medium that's been doing okay without you and will continue long after you're gone.

and

I'm not looking to make this into a feud, or make this into a thing...I have a lot of respect for Robert and was one of the cheerleaders about getting him into Marvel...and we goof on each other on letter columns and message boards...but the recent statements he's made publicly, since his Image partnership I don't agree with at all... I have told Robert all of this in private and would say this to him if we were on a panel together..."I don't agree with your arguments, so please stop using my name to illustrate your point."

I'm really excited that Robert is excited about his creator-owned work, I've had that same feeling since I was producing independent comics, but that's like saying you're anti-defile... I would say to him that the reason he's seen some success with his Image books is based in part, not fully, but in part on his work generated at Marvel...

[BlueBard]

Hm... I wonder about something.

The point was made that comics have become pricier, limited to specialty shops, narrower distribution channels, etc.

I wonder if collectors haven't inadvertently had something to do with that?  Once you start inflating the worth of a comic over its' cover price, it becomes an 'investment' and a commodity.  People get fussier about how they get their comics and in what condition.  Would you want to get yours off the rack (or a stack) at Wal-Mart?

Spinner racks were and are a wonderful thing, but they aren't exactly the best way to keep a comic book in 'mint' condition.

Some comics are worth more than their cover price.  Clearly, you ought to expect to pay more for a Golden Age Action Comics #1.  But lesser books have also been inflated many times over their original cover price due to the collecting craze that started oh so many years ago.  And I wonder if this has contributed toward the jacking up of cover prices to the point where your average 10 year old can't pick a bunch off the rack every month?

[zuludelta]

Hm... I wonder about something.

The point was made that comics have become pricier, limited to specialty shops, narrower distribution channels, etc.

I wonder if collectors haven't inadvertently had something to do with that?

The speculator boom (and bust) during the late 1980s and early 1990s had a lot to do with marginalizing the comics industry to the extent it is now. But it also had a lot to do with the poor management of the Big Two at the time. Both Marvel and DC decided to forgo traditional pulp distribution channels and acquire their own exclusive distribution companies (Marvel bought Heroes World Distribution, and I forget who DC got) that would cater strictly to the direct market and they pretty much stopped supplying material to non-specialty outlets (both companies were banking on the speculator boom going on indefinitely). By the time the 1990s ended, with the speculator bubble officially burst, both Marvel and DC could no longer afford to distribute their own comics, and Diamond Comic Distributors swept in to fill the need, thus setting up the comics distribution monopoly that's in place today. DCD, being the only major comic distributor in North America, has a lot of say when it comes to determining what gets displayed and sold in comic specialty shops and at what price. If DCD doesn't want or can't expand to non-specialty shops, supermarkets, and newsstands, it's probably not going to happen. And any comic book publisher who tries to get another comics distributor (not that there are any viable ones left at this point) to carry their books in non-specialty venues risks the ire of DCD and losing their distribution deal with the direct market. 

[Podmark]

Can't speak for any places elsewhere but in Ontario I've seen comics at both Chapters and Walmart regularly. Single issues I mean. It's almost all Marvel and DC and limited to their more notable properties. No idea if they sell well. And actually I'm not 100% sure they still at Wal-Mart, been a while since I looked.

[Talavar]

Ontario bookstores definitely have spinner racks regularly, and I see them semi-regularly in other types of stores.  Doesn't matter to me much - I buy trades.

As to Bendis' comment, I don't think Kirkman's independent books were helped by his work at Marvel.  I mean, did he even do anything good at Marvel?  His run on Ultimate X-men stank out loud.  I love Invincible, but that quality just didn't seem to carry over.

[Previsionary]

Kirkman came into prominence with Marvel Zombies volume 1. I don't think anything else by him got as much praise/spotlight. His marvel work certainly did him no favors, so I see that as a flaw in the plan on "his" part.

[Podmark]

Ontario bookstores definitely have spinner racks regularly, and I see them semi-regularly in other types of stores.  Doesn't matter to me much - I buy trades.

As to Bendis' comment, I don't think Kirkman's independent books were helped by his work at Marvel.  I mean, did he even do anything good at Marvel?  His run on Ultimate X-men stank out loud.  I love Invincible, but that quality just didn't seem to carry over.

His Ant-Man run has a small loyal fanbase. But yes he rarely had serious success at Marvel.
There are some speculation that he was pushed out of Marvel, and that that may have prompted this direction.

[Previsionary]

From the little I read of Antman, it was a fun read; Antmen are just cursed...obviously. Look at Hank, no matter what he does, he'll be ridiculed for one thing he did ages ago even though Janet was no better than him in most cases. Poor Antmen.

More responses to Kirkman by writers including one by one of my current fave writers, Jeff Parker:

Interviewer: As the writers of Marvel's "kid-friendly" First Class books, what did you think of Robert Kirkman's video mission statement at CBR?
   
JP: I think "Walking Dead" talks down to Zombies. Seriously, I don't think he's read any of the Marvel Adventures books, he's just assuming. A lot of people do that, many still think it's the previous incarnation, Marvel Age, which was nothing like the Adventures line. All we do different, really, is make the stories done-in-one and lean harder on the humor aspect. We never think, "I must spoon feed this story so an eight-year-old will understand."

He's right though that everyone needs to be doing more original material in addition to licensed work. Is anyone against that?

FVL: Well, I'm very disappointed in Robert's characterization of the Marvel Adventures line -- that we "talk down to kids." Someone as passionate and knowledgeable about comics as he is should know better than to make such a blanket dismissal. Jeff and I have been associated -- and proudly -- with the Marvel Adventures line for many years and we work just as hard on them as any of our other works, creator- or corporate-owned, to make them the best comics they can be. I would have to say anyone who says that the Marvel Adventures or "First Class" books talk down to their readership -- of any age -- hasn't actually read many of them. Since Robert made his statement in such an off-the-cuff fashion, I'd assume that's the case with him too.

Anyway, that was a pretty minor part of his editorial. Yes, I agree that comic creators should never stop creating their own work. For one thing, there is the very practical consideration that we are freelancers, not employees. We don't have a retirement plan. If we fall out of favor with the Powers-That-Be at Marvel or DC -- or just choose to move on -- there are very few of us who can make a living off of the future royalties of our past work-for-hire books.

read more at the link.

[MJB]

...There are some speculation that he was pushed out of Marvel, and that that may have prompted this direction.

This is the first time I've read anything about being "forced" out. I read an interview with Todd McFarlane where he says that they wanted to expand the Image partners by one and Kirkman was their first choice. I would imagine that being a partner in a rival comic book company would change ones stance when it comes to the big 2.

-MJB

[zuludelta]

It's interesting reading the reactions of industry professionals like Jeff Parker and Steven Grant to Kirkman's video.

For the most part, I think they all agree that getting more creator-owned comics published is a good thing. But, paraphrasing Grant's column, saying you're "pro-creator-owned comics" in the industry is pretty much the equivalent of saying you're against, oh, I don't know, eating babies or kicking old women in the teeth. It's a stance everybody pretty much agrees on. The problem is that Kirkman is suggesting a model that isn't practical or economically feasible for most comics professionals and publishers. The fact that Kirkman's route in the industry has resulted in a pretty good living for him doesn't mean that it will work and bear the same results for others. If anything, he's one of the few exceptions that prove the rule about the North American comics industry being hugely dependent on Marvel and DC.

[Previsionary]

Just adding on: His plan, from what I'm gathering, is to make creator owned material, move to marvel/DC to build the fanbase, then go directly back to creator owned only, correct? Well, looking at that model, it's a very odd thing to do. Kirkman himself did that and I was introduced to him via marvel. If I were take his Ultimate X-men work alone, I wouldn't dare follow him to his own stuff and that goes for quite a lot of the comic community who's read his stuff. So, his plan is already flawed in that aspect, imo, and he was extremely lucky to have several other books for him to be judged off of. Not everyone will get that chance. Secondly, I can just imagine how overcrowded the comic book characters community would be if a bunch of newly created characters began to frequently pop up while following that plan. It just seems a bit overwhelming and I can barely keep up with all the creator based content out there now from lesser known companies/teams. That's more of a "me" thing, but the competition would probably become brutal especially if several new *similar* characters would begin to appear from different creators under different companies.

Anyway, some interesting reading:

Saying you became an Image partner to save the industry MIGHT sound arrogant? MIGHT??? It is arrogant. And is it why you left? Or do you unwittingly give the real reason when you mention that, with Marvel & DC, when you're hot, you're hot...and when you're not, you're not? More on that after the bullet points.

No one watches a movie and only aspires to do Pulp Fiction 2? Or write Moby Dick 2? Not necessarily fair comparisons, seeing as how an overwhelming majority of works offered in both industries are original products, unlike the comic book industry. Still, you have Dean Koontz writing Frankenstein and another writer taking over the Robert Ludlum's Bourne series. Plenty of directors and screenwriters would kill to work on big budget adaptations. There are people that hang their hat on being a top script doctor. What people want isn't universal, Robert; which is something you should have thought about before deciding everyone needs to follow your plan.

Creator-owned work has been known to extend the life of your career? As long as it is good? Well, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? Not everyone has original ideas that are going to resonate strongly enough with the consumers, are they? What if the creator doesn't feel confident in creating compelling new characters? What if a creator doesn't feel comfortable with the risk you have to take on establishing a new property and getting enough readers on board before it gets to really hit its stride?

Now while I do sell a lot of Walking Dead and some Invincible and other Kirkman work, proving that a lot of folks think he can write, with all due respect, almost every point Kirkman makes about the industry is just flat out wrong.

The most important being, that increasing creator owned work is somehow going to "save comics", whatever that means. It makes good sound bites but that's about it.

Robert, people do watch movies and aspire to only ever make Pulp Fiction 2 and yes people do read novels and decide to only ever write Moby Dick 2 and yes there are people who have decided that they only want to write the WFH Superheroes. But that is neither here nor there, as it has NOTHING to due with the ills of the industry.

She probably didn't mean it this way but Lea Hernandez proves it with her comment, "Here's hoping that Kirkman saying what I and others have been saying as long as I've been in comics (... twenty-two years...)".

Why, if this was known twenty two years ago, is this STILL an issue? Because it is not THE ISSUE, it is an excuse that has been handed down from small press creator to small press creator like a cherished heirloom. But in reality there has never been more creator owned work commercially available (and viable) in the marketplace than there is now and even more is available online. Book publishers are fighting to lure creators away from comic publishers and establishing their own imprints to publish them.

Jeff Smith, Kazu Kibuishi, Ariel Schrag, Jeffrey Brown, Craig Thompson, Roman Dirge...

So, why are we still hearing the same tired refrain from creators?

I've been in the industry (as a creator, publisher and retailer) longer than Kirkman has been alive and despite the unprecedented level of creator owned work on the market, the one constant remains, the blaming of work for hire, particularly via Marvel & DC and retailers inability to embrace any work beyond the Big 2.

Well, I'm not sure how folks like Lea, Ellis or even Kirkman have missed it for twenty two years but Marvel, DC, WFH or retailers have not damaged the industry nearly as much as creator owned work (and the publishers who love them) has. OK to be fair it's not the work but the lack of professionalism surrounding the work that is the culprit.

The Comic Book Industry sucks.

One of the main things in common the comic book industry has with the music industry, the movie/tv industry, the information industry (websites etc), and the video game industry is...they all suck for a similar reason.  In our capitalistic society, we have built up industries around artistic endeavors that reel us in with our passion and our love for whatever medium, and the built a business around it, built barriers to entry and established rules, and then after 80 years, 40 years, 5 years, or whatever time period that passes, create a environment of discontent and displeasure.  I've worked in, around, and observed the music, entertainment and technology industries and it's all the same across the board. 

This is by no means me screaming "The sky is falling!"  Not at all.  Rather, despite this knowledge that these industries suck and are screwed up beyond belief, I'm right there, day in and day out trying to eek a living, make a difference and have some measure of success in those industries.  Why? Because I love comic books, I love the Internet, I love entertainment.  I love.  We all love.  And because of that love, we endure what is essentially a controlling and abusive relationship.

I applaud Robert Kirkman for standing up and saying something publicly and getting the conversation rolling.  I am disappointed by others dismissing his comments, chalking them up to "Oh, he's about to turn 30..." like it's some sort of rite of passage to get frustrated with your place in the world and it's a phase that he will get through.  It's cheap and it's distracting from the core issue.  I don't agree with 100% of what Kirkman said by any means.  But some of what he expressed was true and worth discussing.  Conversely, I think Bendis has every right to object to him being the example used by Kirkman in his interview on Word Balloon.  Despite John Siuntres' desire to provide a place for conversation about comics, in this situation he has facilitated gasoline to be thrown on the fire, focusing on the distracting issues and ignoring the core issue:

The Comic Book Industry Sucks.

We can argue as to whether or not it's important for comic creators to do creator-owned work, or whether or not Marvel and DC should be catering more to kids or not, but we're doing ourselves a disservice because we're ignoring the issue.  The world is changing.  The manner is which we create and consume our media is changing.  The music and movie industry has been going through this same issue for the past 10 years, and comics is beginning to go down this road and if you ask me, the end result is not going to be good for anyone.

Here are some things I know about the comic book industry:

Comics are not for kids by nature. When I was 13, seeing Jean Grey in basically a dominatrix outfit (whip and all) in the Dark Phoenix Saga was eye opening at 13, no matter which way you slice it. Comics are a subversive medium by nature and we should continue to embrace that.  Comic books are punk rock and I don't think they should be "aimed at" or dumbed down for kids.  Rather they simply need to be exposed to kids.  We are pushing the kids out because the comic book industry continues to ghetto-ize itself.  How?

I don't believe Marvel or DC Comics have evolved with the time.  They have found a business model that works: The Direct Market (i.e. comic book stores) and have continued to market/target their core audience (you and me) by continuing to preach to the choir via ads in Wizard and limiting their marketing efforts to cow-towing to two websites and living in fear of managing and controlling leaks and freaking out over the Internet's existence in general.  The Direct Market and comic book retail stores, while fantastic places for you and me, have hurt the industry.  They have closed off the access to comic books to the majority of people in the world.  The emergence of stores like Borders and Barnes & Noble struck fear in the Direct Market and put the publishers in the awkward position of having to support the Direct Market and get their books in big box book stores without upsetting the established apple cart and in doing so, they're failing at both.

Also, if you go looking for them (Bendis's site), I'm pretty sure he has his "Bendis tape" out now with his full, uncensored thoughts on Robert's plan.

[Podmark]

...There are some speculation that he was pushed out of Marvel, and that that may have prompted this direction.

This is the first time I've read anything about being "forced" out. I read an interview with Todd McFarlane where he says that they wanted to expand the Image partners by one and Kirkman was their first choice. I would imagine that being a partner in a rival comic book company would change ones stance when it comes to the big 2.

-MJB

One of Prev's quotes implies that, and I've read on at least one other column either the one I posted earlier or from a LITG column from a couple weeks ago, possibly both. In both cases it's just people speculating. Whether or not it's true I have no idea.

[zuludelta]

Just adding on: His plan, from what I'm gathering, is to make creator owned material, move to marvel/DC to build the fanbase, then go directly back to creator owned only, correct?

Pretty much. The basic problem with that is most people can't even get work from Marvel and DC just based on their creator-owned resume. Kirkman was skilled and fortunate enough to have a string of commercial hits (Invincible and The Walking Dead) and critical acclaim (an Eisner nomination) to streamline his entry into Marvel and help carry his lackluster output throughout his somewhat unremarkable Marvel tenure. Most writers and artists don't have those circumstances buoying them up.

I find Steven Grant's suggestion eminently more realistic and practical. If there's a writer or an artist intent on putting out creator-owned material, they shouldn't "plan" on a stint at Marvel or DC coming along and helping with their exposure, because chances are, that stint isn't happening. They should just focus on creating the best comics that they can, working the marketing angle, and praying that everything works out.   

Secondly, I can just imagine how overcrowded the comic book characters community would be if a bunch of newly created characters began to frequently pop up while following that plan. It just seems a bit overwhelming and I can barely keep up with all the creator based content out there now from lesser known companies/teams. That's more of a "me" thing, but the competition would probably become brutal especially when several new characters would begin to appear from different creators under different companies.

I wouldn't mind new characters popping up from different creators/publishers every now and then. I think it's that vibrant cycle of creative renewal that's helped to keep the Japanese and European comics industries relatively stable and relevant (especially when considering manga's popularity with kids these days), whereas the North American comics scene lives and dies by the marketablity of increasingly dated pop art creations.

The funny thing about the North American comic book scene, compared to other entertainment media, is how it's fixated on past successes and catering to nostalgia. When was the last time the industry successfully pushed a comic book series on to the public featuring a wholly new character or set of characters? 1974's "All-New All-Different X-Men?" 1984's "G.I. Joe?" 1986's "Punisher?" 1990's "Lobo" mini-series? Todd McFarlane's eye-gougingly bad "Spawn" from 1992? Outside of a select few, Marvel and DC (and yes, Image, to a large extent) have been writing stories about characters and using stock plots created 40, 50, 60, even 70 years ago. That doesn't necessarily make those characters irrelevant or old-fashioned... many of those characters and plots are imbued with characteristics from classic literature and folklore that inform all good media and entertainment, but when the creative sensibility used to design those characters and formulate those plots is tied to a particular era, well, it doesn't really come as a surprise that children today aren't as enamoured of "our" superheroes as we were when we were the same age.

Contrast that with Naruto, arguably the most popular comics-based character among pre-teens in the world today. Created only recently in 1997, TokyoPop has sold over 71 million copies of his on-going digest/serial in Japan since then, and the translated English version has sold over 15 million copies in the States since 2003. The character has no real long-standing history or legacy, but has outsold virtually every major superhero comic since it entered the US market, and most of those readers are the elusive 5 to 12 year old demographic. And it's not like he's all that different from your typical hard-luck comic book superhero, either. Naruto is very much in the Peter Parker mold, a lovable loser who uses his sense of humour and unique talents to get the better of foes. Naruto isn't built on anything particularly new or groundbreaking, but it's the superficial "newness," the faux-novelty in combination with a more contemporary design aesthetic, that makes him that much more attractive to the younger set. And I'm willing to bet that ten or fifteen years from now, TokyoPop won't be pushing Naruto onto the next generation of readers, they'll have come up with a new character that speaks to that generation of readers better than Naruto ever could, likely outselling Marvel, DC, and Image again (who'll still be having meetings wondering why kids today don't buy Spider-Man, Invincible, and Batman comics in the numbers that they used to ten or fifteen years ago).                 

Imagine if the music industry only released retrospectives, remakes, re-mixes, or "music inspired by" The Beatles. Sure, all of the die-hard Beatles fans would be happy, and it's awesome music that bears listening and re-listening to, but everybody else who isn't a fan or inclined to like the Beatles would eventually lose interest and move on to something else for their hobby. And this foolhardiness doesn't apply to just Marvel and DC... a lot of creator-owned work (including Kirkman's "Invincible") simply treads over the same material and utilize character design tropes that have been used and re-used ad infinitum since the 1960s. 

[the_ultimate_evil]

i have now lost a lot of respect for kirkman

"rob liefeld is the modern day equivalent of jack kirby"

:blink: :banghead:

WTF

[Jakew]

They worked together on Killraven around the time of that article, no? The article was probably just to draw attention to that.

Although I agree that Liefeld was a huge part of the 90s, comparisions to Kirby are stretching it quite a bit.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Liefeld = Kirby? Ugh!

Dana

[tommyboy]

Liefeld = Kirby?

Yes.
Yes he is.
That's right, he created or co-created most of the characters in the marvel universe, many in DC, he defined the look of comics and pioneered storytelling and art techniques. He helped elevate comics from a largely ignored thing into an artform.
It's the characters he co-created that are now starring in the biggest films, videogames and comics there are.
He is a genius who's skill and creative energy seem boundless, spawning an entire sub-genre of illustrative clones and comic book mythologies.

Oh, wait, none of that's true of Liefeld, all of that is Kirby.
Liefeld is just one of Kirkman's business partners, so no conflict of interest there, hey Robert?
I guess that makes Robert "Stan Lee".
Can I be Steranko? Can I? Can I? Hunh? Hunh?

[daglob]

If the role of Steranko is up for grabs, I want it. You can be Tom Palmer, though...

[tommyboy]

If the role of Steranko is up for grabs, I want it. You can be Tom Palmer, though...

Yessssss!!111111oneoneone11!1 :thumbup:

[BWPS]

I'm terrible at drawing, but even so, I know when things in a picture are supposed to look like they're in front of other things. "Which way arms are supposed to go" isn't exactly ins and outs of human anatomy.