Robert Kirkman: Big Two vs. Creator-Owned

[Fiona]

A video editorial posted last week on CBR: http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17705

The video is a bit rambly but he sums it up pretty well in the paragraphs lower on the page. Kirkman talks about why creators, especially big-name ones, should "take the plunge" and abandon Marvel and DC in favour of creator-owned books. Why? TO SAVE THE COMICS INDUSTRY!

His stance is that Marvel and DC should focus on making comics for kids ("Less continuity, more accessible stories -- not made for kids, but appropriate for kids."), and all the other companies should pick up the task of making comics for adults, including the aging fanboys ("fanmen"). Seems like a good idea- beloved creators would have free rein to tell fresh and original stories, improving and prolonging their careers. The Big Two would still be the Big Two. More young readers would pick up comics.

This is the part that sort of hit home with me... Kirkman explains why the ultimate goal of many creators- "making it big" at Marvel or DC- is backwards: "No one decides to make movies and aspires to only ever do Pulp Fiction 2, and no one decides they want to write novels and only ever aspires to do Moby Dick 2."

That bit made me think because as a new creator, I don't really know what my ultimate goal is beyond making awesome comics that lots of people really like. I had always assumed that I would find more success and be happier doing creator-owned, original comics. I didn't get into the industry because I wanted to draw Spider-Man or Batman or ANY specific existing character, and they still don't particularly excite me (well, except for a handful of them... I'm not made of stone!). But recently I've been finding work at Marvel and DC and it IS exciting, largely because I'm working with characters that have a built-in fanbase who will be thrilled if I do a half-decent job with their beloved heroes, and their reactions to the work can be really satisfying.

And of course I have fantasies about drawing the groundbreaking Elektra miniseries that is critically acclaimed and makes me a household name!

But ultimately, I know I'd rather be remembered for creating a mythos than just adding to an existing one.

[Fiona]

That was my 500th post and I didn't even know! Yesss I made it count!

[HHComics]

Well, the first problem is that creator-owned material, no matter how big the name, doesn't sell. It doesn't sell to the existing market (especially in small areas) and it in no way will attract new readers.

Next, actors aspire to be on Broadway, some creators aspire to work on Superman or Spider-Man. To leave their mark, to fix them or whatever, it's a goal and as valid and attainable as anyone else's goal.

C - big name books with no name talent don't sell as well so this system, with low selling creator owned material and low selling Big 2 product, will not help a struggling industry.

IX, he seems to imply that there's a current lack of original material out there and that's a comment made by someone who doesn't read Previews - the WHOLE THING! There's a ton of innovative, inspired and original content out there. Read PAST the Big 2 in the catalogue and you'll find them. And I wouldn't steer people towards Image; they're just as responsible for producing average, run-of-the-mill material as anyone (Savage Dragon, anyone?)

Finally, the problem with today's comics are not the amount of content or the quality of it, it's the people selling the product that's the issue. The publishers who refuse to promote it and the retailers who are afraid to sell anything that's not Big 2 material. Some of the onus could be placed on the consumer, if they dropped a generic Big 2 book and tried something new (which, honestly, isn't a problem at HH), the industry could grow. If informed staff could recommend alternative reading material, if LCS's could reach out to the community and inform more people about what's out there, the industry could stay strong. As it stands, a high level of apathy from top to bottom in our industry is keep the status quo instead of cranking it up.

[Fiona]

Well, the first problem is that creator-owned material, no matter how big the name, doesn't sell. It doesn't sell to the existing market (especially in small areas) and it in no way will attract new readers.

Kirkman's argument was that it would sell if those big-name creators stopped doing Big 2 work entirely, so if their fans wanted to read their work at all they would have no choice but to check out their original stuff. I don't know how viable that is, but Millar and Bendis sure have some rabid fans. And Joss Whedon's readers would follow him to the ends of the earth. That's a fact.

And I think creator-owned material DOES attract new readers, if it truly has something fresh and new to offer- Scott Pilgrim for example and lots of Clowes stuff.

Next, actors aspire to be on Broadway, some creators aspire to work on Superman or Spider-Man. To leave their mark, to fix them or whatever, it's a goal and as valid and attainable as anyone else's goal.

It is a valid and perfectly respectable goal, but it shouldn't be the only reason people enter the industry, as far as I'm concerned.

C - big name books with no name talent don't sell as well so this system, with low selling creator owned material and low selling Big 2 product, will not help a struggling industry.

In Kirkman's world, the big name books would be aimed at a market that doesn't care about creator names (kids). Hopefully the influx of new readers would make up for the loss of those readers that only buy based on names? The goal there would be to make superhero comics into something easy for young/adolescent readers to get into, like they used to be when the current generation of "fanmen" were kids.

Finally, the problem with today's comics are not the amount of content or the quality of it, it's the people selling the product that's the issue. The publishers who refuse to promote it and the retailers who are afraid to sell anything that's not Big 2 material. Some of the onus could be placed on the consumer, if they dropped a generic Big 2 book and tried something new (which, honestly, isn't a problem at HH), the industry could grow. If informed staff could recommend alternative reading material, if LCS's could reach out to the community and inform more people about what's out there, the industry could stay strong. As it stands, a high level of apathy from top to bottom in our industry is keep the status quo instead of cranking it up.

Can't argue with that!

[Bob Prodor]

This topic hits very close to home- I think about this all the time. I can't comment on other artists. writers, or creators and what I think they should or shouldn't do, and this goes for the Big 2. They can go on putting out what they do- I barely read any of it. This is due to my taste, nothing more.
Personally, I have my own agenda and it involves my own characters (some obviously derivative), stories I need to tell (overly simple, I know), and an artistic idealism (snobbiness). I want there to be an underlying theme or message, as well. And for me, nonconformity, unconventionality, and nonhierarchical production is very important.
Would I like to make my mark on an established character? Of course- I have some great ideas for Alpha Flight, JLA, a weird Defenders/Champions type team, and of course I dream of writing and drawing a Batman story that could sit alongside Year One and Dark Knight. Yeah, right, eh?
(I even have a crazy idea for a Batman/Spidey crossover where Venom is attached to...uh, can't give it away)
There are many different creators, some have their own ideas, some just want to draw Superman, and the industry is diverse enough that there's a place for every type. I'm not a technically strong artist, so I'll never be offered Ultimates 4, and I could never write something as brilliant as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but put my two moderate skills together, and you get something kind of cool and unique.

[Fiona]

There are many different creators, some have their own ideas, some just want to draw Superman, and the industry is diverse enough that there's a place for every type. I'm not a technically strong artist, so I'll never be offered Ultimates 4, and I could never write something as brilliant as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but put my two moderate skills together, and you get something kind of cool and unique.

Yeah, as it is, there is a place for every type, and that's what's wonderful about comics right now... the question though is whether it's sustainable? Once the current readership "dies off" will there be anyone to replace them? Tons of people have ideas and theories about what needs to change in the industry in order to bring in new readers, and out of them all I kind of like Kirkman's.

I don't know if it's realistic or not, but I like it. :)

[HHComics]

Kirkman's argument was that it would sell if those big-name creators stopped doing Big 2 work entirely, so if their fans wanted to read their work at all they would have no choice but to check out their original stuff. I don't know how viable that is, but Millar and Bendis sure have some rabid fans. And Joss Whedon's readers would follow him to the ends of the earth. That's a fact.

Actually, it's not. Actual sales on Runaways did not increase when Whedon took over and as hard as I tried, getting Serenity and Buffy fans to pick up the title was a failure. Millar's Kick Ass has respectable sales (#3 was just over 50,000 copies, holding steady compared against #1 & 2) but how exactly is removing him from Fantastic Four or 1985 going to benefit the industry, other than at least one of his books would ship on time? Sales will decline on the Marvel titles, revenue is lost and the industry suffers.

And I think creator-owned material DOES attract new readers, if it truly has something fresh and new to offer- Scott Pilgrim for example and lots of Clowes stuff.

Yes, they do attract SOME people and, thankfully, a crowd that doesn't normally read comics. However, those examples also reinforce my argument that that material is already there. It just needs better marketing.

In Kirkman's world, the big name books would be aimed at a market that doesn't care about creator names (kids). Hopefully the influx of new readers would make up for the loss of those readers that only buy based on names? The goal there would be to make superhero comics into something easy for young/adolescent readers to get into, like they used to be when the current generation of "fanmen" were kids.

But those kids will care, as we all did. We all have a favourite artist or write that we associate with "quality" and to say kids won't pick up on things like that is short-selling them. I pitch books to 7, 8 & 9-year-olds all the time and I get, "Nah, I don't like the art." Kids do care about things like that.
Can mainstream books host new talent? Sure, it's been tried and it happens all the time (see the run on the Superman books from 2005-2007 where virtual unknown Brazilian artists were routinly showcased) with mixed results.

In the end, it's economics versus personal creative endeavours and if you want the industry to host a balance, you need to put big name people on mainstream titles to generate enough revenue to allow companies to print books like Criminal, Looney Tunes, etc. Sadly, Kirkman comes off as a bit of a hypocrite as his creator-owned projects often take a back seat to his Big 2 projects. Money talks and as popular as Walking Dead and Invincible are, they clearly aren't paying the rent. He should also consider his impact on the industry as late-shipping books not only screw me over as a retailer trying to budget his business and making a living but also cost sales.

[Sketch]

But those kids will care, as we all did. We all have a favourite artist or write that we associate with "quality" and to say kids won't pick up on things like that is short-selling them. I pitch books to 7, 8 & 9-year-olds all the time and I get, "Nah, I don't like the art." Kids do care about things like that.
Can mainstream books host new talent? Sure, it's been tried and it happens all the time (see the run on the Superman books from 2005-2007 where virtual unknown Brazilian artists were routinly showcased) with mixed results.

First, there is very little I could bring to this article as a creator (well...aspiring. I swear to god one of these days I'm gonna finish a project) and my views very closely match Fiona's and Jay's in many regards on Kirkman's points. I think the Big 2 should start doing a lot more 'geared towards kids' stuff (The DCAU is, simply put...awesome.)

Now, for the part I've quoted, Jay has a point. We've all got Favorites (Neal Adams on Batman for me) for writers and artists over the years, but I'll tell you something from a general collector's POV: I had no idea who Neal Adams was until a year ago.

He's been my favorite artist on Batman since before I can remember.

My point is that kids will have favorites, but it's going to be simple things, and they sure as hell won't know, and certainly will NOT care, about the names of the people behind the comics. Do they even need to? No. They're kids, not collectors. Comics are ultimately meant to be enjoyed. I think what the problem with the industry is now is that the collectors are outweighing the enjoyers, and there aren't enough that do BOTH of these things. See, with kids, things do matter like who is doing what (I don't like that art) but...will the kid care if that art was done by Joe Q Nobody, or Jim Lee? Names don't matter...the look of the book does. Just because someone is a nobody will not automatically mean kids won't like it. And just because someone is a big name dosen't mean kids will love it.

The problem is, as I said, collectors outweighing the enjoyers. Collectors want the big names, and they push the sales. Kids are an after thought, regulated to DCAU (Which is still awesome) and the like, never given a chance at more of what the company provides unless they jump into the older population (Which, given the state of Marvel stories, will make their souls die a little )

I dunno...the industry seems to be staying afloat, but we're going to see a case of kids simply not caring for comics, since they can get similar stories and visuals via other methods (Television, video games etc) in a much easier fashion.

[HHComics]

The kids that did care about the creators while reading comics are now the ones working in the field now(mostly). Very few people who go on to make comics have no clue who their predecessors were.

Will Joe Average care? Probably not, as you say. However the problem isn't what's being made (or not made), it's exposing and captivating a new audience, which the industry has made great leaps forward in.

[Fiona]

Kirkman's argument was that it would sell if those big-name creators stopped doing Big 2 work entirely, so if their fans wanted to read their work at all they would have no choice but to check out their original stuff. I don't know how viable that is, but Millar and Bendis sure have some rabid fans. And Joss Whedon's readers would follow him to the ends of the earth. That's a fact.

Actually, it's not. Actual sales on Runaways did not increase when Whedon took over and as hard as I tried, getting Serenity and Buffy fans to pick up the title was a failure.

Yeah, I'm afraid I can't back that up with any figures, just the reactions of all my Whedon-fanatic friends when they find out he has a new book out.

Millar's Kick Ass has respectable sales (#3 was just over 50,000 copies, holding steady compared against #1 & 2) but how exactly is removing him from Fantastic Four or 1985 going to benefit the industry, other than at least one of his books would ship on time? Sales will decline on the Marvel titles, revenue is lost and the industry suffers.

Again, in the Kirkman model, the fans that only buy Marvel books because they're written by Millar would buy Kick Ass instead (being personal fans of his), and be replaced at Marvel by a new generation of readers that don't care about creator names. I'm with Man Swamp on this- I think younger readers care about quality, yes, but not necessarily the celeb status of the writer or artist. Moving the focus away from "big names" doesn't have to impact the quality of the books. There are tons of lesser-known or up-and-coming creators that are as talented as the famous dudes.

Sadly, Kirkman comes off as a bit of a hypocrite as his creator-owned projects often take a back seat to his Big 2 projects. Money talks and as popular as Walking Dead and Invincible are, they clearly aren't paying the rent. He should also consider his impact on the industry as late-shipping books not only screw me over as a retailer trying to budget his business and making a living but also cost sales.

I have to point out that Kirkman isn't doing Big 2 work anymore, he is focusing 100% on his Image books and as he claims, making a very good living doing so. Even his artists on Invincible and Walking Dead make enough to get by on those books alone. Of course not every creator can be as successful as Kirkman with their original projects, but I think it's a great thing to strive for!

[HHComics]

Again, in the Kirkman model, the fans that only buy Marvel books because they're written by Millar would buy Kick Ass instead (being personal fans of his), and be replaced at Marvel by a new generation of readers that don't care about creator names. I'm with Man Swamp on this- I think younger readers care about quality, yes, but not necessarily the celeb status of the writer or artist. Moving the focus away from "big names" doesn't have to impact the quality of the books. There are tons of lesser-known or up-and-coming creators that are as talented as the famous dudes.

Still don't see any plan or logic here. Millar fans are already buying Kick Ass and him leaving FF would take fans away from that book. Where do these mysterious new readers come from to fill the Millar void?

And the reason big names are big names is that they bring a certain level of quality to a book that lesser names don't. Yes, there are some that are as talented but not all. Geoff Johns hasn't always written as well as he has and McFarlane wasn't drawing "Spawn-like" when he was doing Infinity Inc. It's why you build up to working on certain projects. In theory, a book should have a level of consistancy. That's what the companies strive for.

I have to point out that Kirkman isn't doing Big 2 work anymore, he is focusing 100% on his Image books and as he claims, making a very good living doing so. Even his artists on Invincible and Walking Dead make enough to get by on those books alone. Of course not every creator can be as successful as Kirkman with their original projects, but I think it's a great thing to strive for!

Well, his perception of a good living is his own and others may not see eye to eye with that. His sales numbers on the floppies are not stellar (20,000 for Walking Dead and under 15,000 for Invincible) but he has had remarkable success with the trades. And he is the exception, not the rule, easily.

The industry needs talent that can do both, boost a mainstream title and work a creator-owned on the side. And the industry is built for it (Vertigo, Icon, Image) so what he's complaining about, I'm not sure. DC's making more kids books and bringing in more unknown talent all the time, there's more smaller companies publishing creator-owned stuff; the avenues are there for everything to work except there's no marketing behind any of it. Everyone wants to make books and make money but no one wants to work at.

[Temperance]

Well, his perception of a good living is his own and others may not see eye to eye with that. His sales numbers on the floppies are not stellar (20,000 for Walking Dead and under 15,000 for Invincible) but he has had remarkable success with the trades. And he is the exception, not the rule, easily.

I am not surprized about that. New people Kirkman's stuff are often not regular comic readers; they are casual walk-ins or people who, as I am often told "Don't read comics that much anymore" or "Used to read them along time ago, but stopped" They are more inclinded to buy trades because they don't want to hunt down old floppies, and just want a nice collection of comics for a decent price to sit down and read.
Of all the people I sold Collections of Walking Dead and Invincible to, they were co-workers from the gaming store, or people I knew who liked Zombie movies. They might pop into a comic store now and then, but they weren't collectors of anything anymore.

[Brian Guay]

One thing that keeps coming up time and again is this concept of comics for kids. I have to question is not most super-hero titles really for kids already?

Sure they seem very adult and mature compared to the comics we grew up reading but I also grew up watching movies like Star Wars, Smokey and The Bandit, and Back To The Future. The same movies my parents (mostly Dad) watched. Watching these movies now I can't help but enjoy them but they are now a bit quaint.

So in this day of movies like Crash or even still Pulp Fiction I ask, are our young not ready for the comics of the day as well?

This leads me to back up a point of Jay's. It's not that the work isn't out there, it's just not being advertised correctly. Every episode of Buffy should have had a commercial for the comic. (Does the DVD have ads for the comics on them or inside the packaging?)

Even as a fan of comics I find it hard to find great new titles. Sure I could read all of Previews and maybe I should but I also have comics to read, work to attend, a Mom to take care of...I personally want to be bombarded with your ads. I want them to pop up as I'm cruising the web. I want them on TV when I'm watching Family Guy but more important then frequency, I want your ad to tell me about your comic!!! So many ads out there only focus on a snippet of cool art. Tell me something that will hook me. 100 Bullets was in my mind a comic about an assassin...until I read a review on it and was interested by the premise. Same thing with Y The Last Man (I thought it was a super hero book until I saw an interview )

I think Kirkman's model can work for some but to change it into a "save the industry" mission statement...? I'm not so sure.

Bri

P.S Do most fans really follow their favorite creators that closely? Or do they follow their favorite characters instead? Who would win the readership if a fav creator left a fav character?

[Fiona]

One thing that keeps coming up time and again is this concept of comics for kids. I have to question is not most super-hero titles really for kids already?

He stressed the point that they're not "MADE for kids" but they are APPROPRIATE for kids and new readers, meaning less focus on continuity and mega-crossovers (kids have less money and new readers are not willing to spend as much on comics), more self-contained stories or shorter arcs that are just easier to pick up and get into. I don't think the maturity level has to change, just the formatting of the stories. I know some serious fans love this, but many potential readers are turned off by how convoluted and bloated many superhero comics have become. It is hard for a casual reader to pick up an issue every now and then and be able to follow the story. I think this is a problem; some fans disagree.

Even as a fan of comics I find it hard to find great new titles. Sure I could read all of Previews and maybe I should but I also have comics to read, work to attend, a Mom to take care of...I personally want to be bombarded with your ads. I want them to pop up as I'm cruising the web. I want them on TV when I'm watching Family Guy but more important then frequency, I want your ad to tell me about your comic!!! So many ads out there only focus on a snippet of cool art. Tell me something that will hook me. 100 Bullets was in my mind a comic about an assassin...until I read a review on it and was interested by the premise. Same thing with Y The Last Man (I thought it was a super hero book until I saw an interview )

I agree with you and Jay that all comics should be marketed better, but I don't know anything about marketing so I'm not sure what all that advertising would cost the companies. Do they not do it because they don't think it's worth it? Seems like something they would have tried out in the past or at least researched...

I think Kirkman's model can work for some but to change it into a "save the industry" mission statement...? I'm not so sure.

Well, I think he was being a little sensationalist just to grab your attention.

P.S Do most fans really follow their favorite creators that closely? Or do they follow their favorite characters instead? Who would win the readership if a fav creator left a fav character?

It might be a split, or maybe both would win and fans would keep buying the creator and also keep buying the character! Haha, we can hope, anyway...

[Brian Guay]

Okay, I noticed that there was a write up just below the video. This write up was much less rambly and made more sense.

I still get the impression that Kirkman thinks today's comics are a bit heavy to appeal to a the young teenage crowd. I also believe less continuity may not be such a good thing for comics either. Part of the fun of reading serial comics is getting the little callbacks to past events. I was "there" when Jubilee pulled Logan off that cross and nurse him back to health. Having that be part of the X-men history and referred back to is a great joy for me, when I read my comics of today. I got hooked on X-men cause the story was good at the time. I really enjoyed Identity Crisis for the same reason. I didn't have a clue as to the past relationships of the characters outside of what was in that story. I often wonder is it the comics that new readers have trouble keeping up with or just the old fans? Just a random thought.

I will say though I'm all for dropping these big cross overs!! They happen too often to even be special anymore. Also they still end up with a lot of sucky comics that don't make a lot of sense unless you read the other books attached to it. That in of itself tells me Marvel is not much interested in new readership.

Bri