I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there’s a nice article about “Fallen Angel,” complete with more artwork from issue #1. And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own–which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned…just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are “pûššìëš,” resting on their “fat áššëš” and failing to “show (Erik) what (they’ve) got.”
Now I haven’t bothered with Larsen’s previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of “But I digress” for transitions.) But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address…
Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer “hold back,” I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it. Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that–freed of the shackles of the main companies–all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes. Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.
(This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. “Sachs & Violens,” “Soulsearchers and Company,” “Fallen Angel,” plus my novel creations such as “Sir Apropos of Nothing” are nothing like my other comic book work.)
Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?
Okay. Fine.
Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said. Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it. If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you’re just not trying hard enough and you’re a wimp and pussy. Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.
What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be…jealousy? Well, let’s check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on “Aquaman” that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his…and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn’t want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod. Maybe he’s the fox dismissing those grapes as just too dámņëd sour.
Or maybe he’s just shilling for Image, with “Show me what you can do” as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine. Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I’d say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jáçkášš isn’t the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone. Well…almost everyone.
Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever…God bless ’em. There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hëll does ANYONE get off bìŧçh-šláppìņg people who are living out their dreams…the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with? And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive “peachy.” It deserves a “well done you” and “welcome to the club” and “stick with it.” It doesn’t deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.
And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.
Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.
Just one fan’s opinion.
PAD
• 
Jonathan (The Other One) writes:
I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction
Well, no. The new series is, even more than than the original, which is saying quite a lot, crap.
The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience.
In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn’t work, your story can’t. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005.
I don’t demand perfection in the world-building of my sf — hëll, I’m a Whovian! I’ll accept worlds built of wobbly cardboard! — but I do demand that at least an effort be made.
The new BG didn’t even pretend to look busy! Off-the rack suits, cigarettes, all the tropes surrounding cancer and doctor-patient relationships, the exact form of the US government and separation of powers, presidential swearing-in ceremonies, liquor, 24-hour days and cheap battery-powered wall-clocks from K-Mart.
Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example.
The new BG isn’t science fiction at all. It’s a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of “mainstream drama” into a spaceship, and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it’s sf, and that it’s good, when it is in fact neither.
The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I’ve previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who’ve fallen for it.
The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I’ve previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who’ve fallen for it.
Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they’ve been duped into having it…
This has turned into an odd pìššìņg match between the PAD army and Larsen.
Look, I was not a fan of the original Image crew, back then I thought of it as a war between Writers and Artists.
But Image now is a great place, with new ideas and yes new heroes. In terms of creativity, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the big two.
I hate to get all negative and self evident as well but the comics industry is going thru a HUGE downward spiral.
What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?
Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?
I thought it was an interesting and provocotive
column.
The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I’ve previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who’ve fallen for it.
Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they’ve been duped into having it…
If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you’ve probably been duped into having that opinion.
Not all opinions are created equal, and while it’s important to have an open mind, Ity’s even more important that you not keep it so wide open that garbage blows in off the streets.
The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don’t notice the stories are all stuff you’ve seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on ’em.
Leviathan wrote:
“The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience.”
Effrontery and contempt are kind of strong words, don’t you think? What, do you think Moore & co., while planning the series, sat around and said, “Our viewers are a bunch of simps and idiots, so screw ’em”? C’mon, that’s silly.
Besides, there actually is more than a “slight gesture toward a semblance of culture,” or at least there was in the 3 episodes I’ve seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can’t remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before.
Are there things which probably would be different in a distant, extraterrestrial culture which aren’t (the cigarettes, the liquor, the form of government, etc.)? Sure, but why is that any more of a big deal than the fact that we hear them speaking English? (Plus, part of the premise is that there is a connection with our world, hence the various Greek names in use, so who knows, maybe there’ll be an explanation for it. We have no idea when the series is set, relative to our time.)
“In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn’t work, your story can’t. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005.”
While I’m sure many would agree with you, the first sentence is open to debate – sci fi can go down many different roads. The latter, what, you’ve never seen science fiction that functions, and is to a large extent constructed as a direct commentary on the present before? (And why just LA circa 2005? US circa 2005 is more like it – paranoia, threats of terrorism, conflict between military and the democracy.)
“Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example.”
Why would the character of the next president have to match that of LBJ? Are the only significant things in the actual iconic image of LBJ’s swearing in LBJ himself and his presidency? Aren’t there other meanings attached to those images, that moment?
“The new BG isn’t science fiction at all. It’s a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of “mainstream drama” into a spaceship,”
What’s wrong with mainstream drama? What’s wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?
“and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it’s sf, and that it’s good, when it is in fact neither.”
Okay, I can see how you could try to argue that “moving starfields outside the window” might fool people into thinking something is sci fi when it’s not, (though I don’t think that’s accurate here), but how would it fool them into thinking it was good? (And you’re on shaky ground when you say that someing “is _in fact_ not good.”)
Like I said, I’ve only seen 3 eps, the ones broadcast on NBC, but for my money, this is the best, most intelligent, most interesting TV science fiction set in space since Farscape. (No offense meant to the Firefly fans – that was a decent show.) So it’s not your cuppa tea. Why does that make it horrible, an act of contempt, etc.?
Leviathan wrote:
“If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you’ve probably been duped into having that opinion.”
I don’t think Moore’s trying to sell anyone the Brooklyn Bridge here. He’s hoping you’ll give up an hour of your time each week to watch a story he’s telling – hardly the same thing, and a specious argument.
“The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don’t notice the stories are all stuff you’ve seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on ’em.”
Or it’s an attempt to tell a story that comments on our contemporary world, and accordingly (not out of necessity, but out of creative choice) incorporates elements of our world into the world of the story.
And again, personally, I haven’t seen some of this done before on television, from this perspective (the religious conflict; seriously questionable acts committed by characters who, according to the tropes of television sci fi, should act as moral compasses, etc.)
And really, given the statements and interviews made by Moore about the show, I think you’re being really unfair here. Not everyone has the same idea about what sci fi should be and what it should do. Why is that a horrible thing? Why is any attempt to put forth a different type of sci fi than the type you prefer simply a con game?
Leviathan: Okay, we get it. You have a large amount of irrational hatred for a television show. That’s you ropinion. (And I’ll resist the temptation to hoist you upon your own petard of opinions having differing reletive worth.)
That does not mean that those who do not agree with you have been fooled or are somehow less mentally developed than you. It means they have different tastes. It’s called life, and it’s going to happen quite a bit, I think you’ll find, so you might want to work on adapting yourself to it…
“What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?”
Japan.
“Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?”
You’re forgetting that the “one time” at which Superman debuted, comic books were ten cents, were situated on every street corner, far more kids read, there were millions of copies out of every issue, TV didn’t exist and movies were what you went to on Saturdays. Now they’re $2.99, they’re in specialty shops and bookstores, kids are busy on the internet, or with video games and aren’t reading that much anyway, cable TV is available 24/7, and movies are easily accessible on DVDs.
As for iconic characters, two thoughts: The last truly major iconic character I can think of created was Wolverine, and that was by Len Wein WHILE WRITING HULK. Furthermore, it is the corporate structure Larsen so reviles that helped make Superman the mythic character that he is.
“I thought it was an interesting and provocative column.”
And if you throw eggs at people’s front door, it’s an interesting and provocative way of saying hello. Doesn’t mean it isn’t rude and insulting.
PAD
Another comics tradition that can be traced back to Doc Savage, in part, is the “team of experts.”
That’s an interesting thought. Off the top of my head I can’t think of anything before Doc that would fit the bill…unless there are some folk tales. Were there any stories in Chinese mythology like the sort of Kung-Fu movies that are so popular, with teams of characters who are each experts in one form of martial arts? Or something form mythology where a team of Gods does mighty deeds with each God using his or her special powers?
I wonder why Doc Savage has never been successfully done as a comic book.
I really found this rant by Larsen, who wants to get more creator-owned books on the market… especially when I sent an entire run of TRUE STORY, SWEAR TO GOD for Image to consider reprinting in color.
It was impossible to get a hold of Larsen to begin with, with Erik never answering an email to simply ask if he’d received the package, then never letting us know what they thought. I mean, I can TAKE “sorry, this won’t fit in with what we want to sell” but at least take two seconds to tell me in an email.
I was just disillusioned with Image from that point. Why blow off an indie creator with an Eisner-nominated series and then bìŧçh about creators who aren’t doing enough indy work? Dude… if you’d answer an email, perhaps they WOULD do more.
1) Jacob – Yes, it sounds like I would have been offended by several other of Larsen’s columns, as well – if I had ever heard of his column before reading this thread two days ago.
2) Well, this is why I was careful to avoid attacking new Battlestar Galactica in my previous repudiation of Jonathan (the other one)’s comment. But, I will second at least part of what Leviathan is saying. From my limited exposure to new BSG (because it just didn’t compell me to want to watch any more of it, any of the times I tried), I was distracted and bugged by the seemingly nonsensical EXACT CURRENT EARTH CULTURE elements which were showing up. Now, it may eventually turn out that these colonies spread out from Earth-That-Was – to borrow terminology from Firefly, that “inferior” show which also uses this premise; that would be an explanation for this Earthishness. (And, specific cultural elements of society being exactly the same in a supposedly alien culture is a lot different than a language being “translated” into English for the viewers.) Otherwise, it just seems like needlessly distracting, and possily lazy and weak, writing to me.
That said, maybe I would have a different view of the show if I had (somehow) managed to watch every minute of it. (And hearing that Michelle Forbes has shown up as Cain – while raising the question of “How many times can they play the gender-change card?” – has raised my curiosity a little again.) But, the fact that I did not, while I have watched every second of Firefly, repeatedly – Go see Serenity!!! – again speaks to the point, that we all “must” not, cannot, and will not concede that BSG is a superior television program. ‘Kay?
Yes, there are elements of known culture transplanted wholesale to BSG – in large part because those elements can say something that might takes lines, even pages, of exposition otherwise. For instance, when Kara “Starbuck” Thrace wound up back on Cylon-occupied Caprica, we saw her personal vehicle – a military-surplus HMMWV. Yes, they might have draped it with fiberglas shapes to make it look all “futuristic”, but then we would have had the two characters present at the time forced into a conversation whose main point was to exposit that Kara drove a military vehicle in her off-time. Using the HMMWV itself gave us that point in a single flash of airtime, without making the characters exposit all over the place.
Besides, if you’re going to claim Firefly‘s superiority based on that, you’re going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup…
(Yes, Joss was also using existing tropes to shorthand the concept of a frontier culture. See, the idea works in a number of stories, doesn’t it?)
(And I promise, this is the last time I’ll derail the discussion to defend any TV show… 🙂 )
The last time that I’ve read a column that was that confrontational was from one of Peter’s dearest friends, Harlan Ellison. The big difference is that when Harlan didn’t know what he was talking about, he was the first to admit it! Also, when he criticized SF writers for allowing the Television and Film industry to rip them off and encouraged them to take a personal interest in how their works were adapted, HE LED BY EXAMPLE!
Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?
If someone new to the comics biz was a fan of Savage Dragon and wanted to write/illustrate it, does that make him a BIG BABY?
From what I’ve read regarding Stan Lee’s comments about Peter’s work on The Hulk & Spiderman as well as his BID articles, I deeply envy Peter for receiving those praises from a legend who admittedly “paved the road that Peter’s still travelling on” rather than dismiss Peter’s works because his most recognizable works were created by someone else! I would feel the same way if someone else adapted Peter’s original work in a film or a comic book, personal bias aside that I probably wouldn’t like it as much as the original if that were to happen.
My heart goes out to you, Peter, that the publishing and movie industry still don’t get it! I guess businessmen who can’t see beyond a ledger never will!
For those who wish to correct me by saying that Spawn was created by Todd McFarland, not Eric Larsen, please don’t. I’m well aware of that. I was just trying to make a point about creator-owned characters being treated by the Image guys, who are ALSO publishing licensed characters like..ahem… Lara Croft BTW, the same way that Larsen alledges Marvel & DC are treated these “cowards.” Pot to Kettle: “What’s happening, Black?”
“Fortress of Solitude – um…
Batcave?
>Savage was a superman in the original tradition – Superman was just that extrapolated to the nth degree.
But, honestly, for all the similarities which you quite correctly point out, Doc has more in common with Bats than he does Supes. Another example, even Superman eventually got married. Neither Bruce nor Doc ever did. For all that he is an alien, Clark Kent fits in more with the people he’s protecting than the other two ever did. Clark Kent is Clark Kent (as Byrne made clear) and becomes Superman at need. Bruce is Bruce more as a disguise than anything else (think of him in KINGDOM COME where he is BATMAN 24 hours a day). One gets the impression that Batman takes time off as Bruce. Doc doesn’t even bother. Also, Both Doc and Bats are self-made specimens of uber-humanity. Superman became so because of a combination of genetics and environment which were outside his control.
Jaime: “When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?”
Sandman & co. Unusual, but still work-for-hire owned by DC.
As far as Larsen’s column, I think he’s got an ok point but presented it horribly. Same old, same old. Just ignore the crap.
Just to step briefly into the digression for a moment….
Personally, I think trying to compare (and thus determine the “superior” of the two) Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica is like trying to compare apples and oranges.
I enjoy both shows. But, it’s hard to say which is “better” because – from my perspective – they’re just so different.
With BSG, I come back to see what happens next. But, I’m not quite emotionally invested in the characters…I don’t care much for them beyond how they facilitate the story’s movement.
With Firefly, the characters are the thing for me. The story – in and of itself – serves to allow me to spend time with these people and informs their own personal stories. I am emotionally invested in them. (And, anyone sitting near me during Serenity the other night could have seen as such. “I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.”)
So, for my two cents, it’s impossible to say whether the orange makes a better apple than the apple, or vice versa.
It is, however, possible to prefer apples over oranges, or vice versa. 🙂
which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned.
Buscema maybe, but Kirby (Captain Victory, Silver Star, Satan’s Six) and Ditko (Mr. A, Avenging World, Static) certainly did creator-owned stuff. I don’t know offhand if Stan Lee actually owns any of the “Stan Lee Media” characters, or Stripperella, or any of his other later work (and he might not want to admit it if he did), but no one can accuse him of just resting on his laurels.
Anyway, Larsen’s obnoxious demeanor aside, doesn’t anyone think it’s weird that the comics industry is so dependent on all these ancient franchises? In movies, you have some remakes and the occasional long-running series like James Bond, but for the most part it’s new stuff. Same with books and tv. “CSI” spin-offs are ubiquitous now, but you know in a few years they’ll fade and be replaced by the next big trend. But in comics, it’s Superman-Spiderman-Batman-XMen, decade after decade. That’s just bizarre.
2 little things running around my head (and after the week I’ve had, that’s a miracle)
Firstly, in regards to the article–from what I’ve seen it REALLY resembles the attitudes put forth by my Creative Writing II teacher (and that term is questionable) in college. First night of the course he says to us, “You WILL not be submitting any science fiction or fantasy stories because they as a group do not represent real literature.” Took all I had not to leap up and drive my pen through his temple. But, this guy was a published poet, so’s all he was interested in was poetry. I like poetry, I like writing poetry, I just don’t like SHOWING my poetry cuz it’s just a little TOO personal. But, back to the topic, while it can be more satisfying for some to work exclusively on their own creations, others like to play with other people’s worlds and see where it leads. My life would be much duller had I never been introduced to Bernie the Klingon and the phaser-proof vest.
Which sorta leads to my second point, the above Galactica complaint that said the first step in science fiction is world creation. As someone who’s been writing science fiction and fantasy for the last quarter of a century, I must say that the first step is really deciding what you want to say, what kind of story you want to tell. World creation comes waaaaaay down after that. It’s what my brother calls the D&D Syndrome, create whole interesting complex worlds with whole interesting complex people and you’re so intent on creating them that once everything’s done, you can’t create anything for them to do there. Don’t limit yourself to anything. Just write what’s in you. Don’t do it to be sold, don’t do it to please anyone but yourself.
And anybody else picturing Erik as Dan Ackroyd lighting Halloween costumes on fire?
“I thought it was an interesting and provocative column.”
Actually, despite my earlier posting, he does have a good point. The fact that it took me three readings to see it and it’s taking others longer just underscores Erik’s greatest failing in the industry. It’s not his poor plotting, writing or sub-par artwork. It’s his mouth.
Erik is making a good point. But his manner of doing it, tantrum throwing three year old, distracts everyone but the most diehard Erik supporter from seeing it. Approach is everything sometimes. If someone came up to you and told you that you clothes looked ok but you might look better in these colors with this cut, you might respond well to them and their suggestions. You would respond less well to someone who walks to you and says, “dude, your clothes look like s**t and you have no sense of style at all!”
It is true that some new blood, icon wise, is missing of late. Erik is right about this and he’s not alone in saying it. I would disagree with what, I think, he puts forth as reasons for this.
There are a great deal of reasons, in this fan’s opinion, for why there are no new icons out there right now. Most of them have nothing to do with anything Erik cited.
One thing that makes an icon is age. How many awesome creations have been given the “next great icon” tag over the last two decades that, while hot for a year or so, fizzled badly with age? How many “just good” characters are out there now that have been slow, quietly building over that same time period and may reach icon statues in another decade or so?
Batman, Superman and Spider-Man were all popular when they first came out but were not icons until many years later. To look around at the present crowd of characters and decry the lack of icons is shortsighted. It’s like the network executives who used to cancel any new science fiction show because it wasn’t doing Trek numbers and Trek buzz after four shows. Trek had a twenty year build up, major motion pictures and a Next Generation spin off behind it. New sci-fi show X didn’t. But the same network executives would often overlook the failure of Trek in its first run while killing a potential future Trek like icon. Same with M*A*S*H*. It’s first season ratings would kill it these days. It became one of the greatest shows of all time. Same thing with comic book icons. They need time.
Wolverine has been cited by several people on this post as one of the last great comic icons to be created. Again, that took time. He was despised across the board by fans when he was first introduced. It took a lot of time, tweaks and fan tolerance to create the Wolverine of icon status.
Another problem we have now is the greater number of challenges facing the medium for pop culture attention. Pulp novels and comics had books, radio and movies to compete against. TV was a later addition to their competition. But the competition helped the characters become icons. Radio, movies and TV looked to pulp novels and comics to flesh out their offerings a bit. Now, while that still happens, there are many more options for Hollywood to investigate for creative inspiration.
Movies and TV shows based on video games are being made left and right. Foreign films (horror this week) are the remake flavor of the month. The relatively short history of TV is being mined for nostalgia movie and TV making in an amazing (and in the case of The Love Boat movie, terrifying) rate. And that nostalgia factor is also hurting the creation by pop culture of new comic book icons. Executives and writers of movies and TV seem to want to do their version of the heroes that they grew up with or that they think will be big with the public. There’s a reason that Batman Begins was made and that Superman and Wonder Woman are in the pipeline. They’re bankable, proven commodities. They create buzz and even non-comic people know them. It’s a bit like Trek VS show X. Hero X would have to be a mega huge hit with mega huge buzz to get the same attention as a moderately successful Batman or Superman.
That kinda hurts the pop culture forces that help create a comic book icon. The nostalgia factor really hurts. Batman becomes Vanna White in a way. She became famous for being famous. People would by books, magazines and bad TV movies because of her while they would pass up the same items featuring lesser known actresses with far greater talent. Marketing people new that and they would create things to pander to that target audience. Why risk a payday on an unknown? Same here. Why risk a payday on Hero X when Batman is there to offer up a huge payday?
The general public’s attitude towards comics plays into this as well. Batman, Spider-Man and Superman create huge buzz and are hotly awaited properties as movies because people know them. Try and explain a Crow, Spawn, V, Savage Dragon, Speedball or other lesser known by the public hero and you get far less interest (if not complete disinterest). Less interest translates to more risk and that translates into less interest to take the risk by executives. Less exposure equals less ingraining into the pop culture and less “icon” status.
If Erik were serious about wanting to do something about the issues that he raised he would address these problems and others or try to get a discussion going about them. He would also not express his opinion in a way that turns off everybody but his five or six most loyal fans.
Another thing he might do is look at how he might be barking up the wrong tree here. I’m not so sure that the ideas he puts forth to back his viewpoint are that valid. I’ve been racking my brain here and I can not come up with one comic book character created by an independent company or creator in the last twenty or so years that is anything like an icon in pop culture or comic culture like a Batman or Superman. The big two may have done a lot of things wrong in their history but creating a cash cow is not one of those things. They did that as right as you can and they did it by creating icons. Maybe he should look at how they did it and figure out what an independent creator can do to replicate that success while not throwing out complete creativity. It may not be possible. The creative process is sometimes at odds with the things that the big two have done to create and preserve their cash cows/icons.
See, Erik is about 25% right. Maybe we should be throwing out the 75% of his stupidity to focus on that 25% right and discuss what may help the problem. Not that, despite Erik’s world view, we and others haven’t been doing that for years. The biggest thing Erik seems to be missing is that most people are trying to create the next big icon or iconic story everyday no matter where they work.
Another thing Erik seems to be missing is what makes people proud. I’m always proud when I put out my best effort and do my best work. It doesn’t matter if it’s around the house, at work or for some other institution. I would be just as proud, were I a comic book writer, if my best work was considered to be an awesome run on Batman or Superman rather then a book of my own. I think I would like my creation to be popular but I think, with my nature, that I would be proud of any work I did.
He also seems to have an odd view about legacies. He seems to believe that Savage Dragon is a greater legacy to leave the comic’s world then something done by creator X at the big two. I would argue that he’s wrong. Frank Miller’s Batman and Daredevil runs have had more impact on comics then the Savage Dragon ever has. X-Men’s impact on the industry was huge. And, hey, look at the huge number of mutant clone books Image churned out. The big guys effected the independents rather then the other way around.
I think that the legacy of a great story run or great creation in an ongoing book like Batman will have a greater long term impact and legacy then a self contained, self owned book that ends with the book’s creator or it’s creator’s whim. I loved Cerebus (most the time) but I hardly think that it had the impact on the industry like many of the books from Marvel, DC and, for a short time, Image.
It also, sometimes, takes away from a character’s legacy when a series ends. If Batman is owned by DC and around 100 years from now then it will, even with a circulation of 25 issues, have a greater legacy and influence the a long dead series that’s mostly forgotten. If Savage Dragon ends when Erik chooses to end it and no one else ever continues it then it fades away and dies. Is that a problem? Yeah, kinda. And again, if Erik were serious then he might look at those issues and try to find a way to correct them. But he’s not and he won’t.
So Erik has one good point buried under tons of horse manure. Maybe it’s worth looking at even if he’s not.
Wait… One just popped into my head.
TMNT. Closest thing to a pop culture icon created by an independent in the last 20 odd years. Still doesn’t stand up well next to the other icons though.
Walt Simonson on Thor: Pussy
Pussy, no. Artist who makes my eyes hurt, yes. Especially with Wiacek inking. The two of them made me cringe when I bought their run on X-Factor… but buy them I did, because I was so fond of the characters, who had been created by another writer decades before and who had been brought back together by some “pussy.” (Where’s the Bob Layton Anti Defamation Defense Elite Revenge Squad when you need it?) Larsen might not approve, but back in Seventh Grade, I was as happy as Scott that they brought Jean Grey back. Typically I disapprove of retconning, but occasionally exceptions should be made.
That’s the thing that the ignorant šlûŧ is forgetting– these characters are iconic because they register with the audience. The audience is frankly much more interested in keeping Superman and Spider-man around than in seeing Larsen’s artistically pure Savage Dragon in the stores. Image has been around for ten years– that would be plenty of time to dent DC or Marvel’s dominance, but it hasn’t happened, and I don’t think that it’s merely a matter of corporate hegemony. Spider-man’s popularity didn’t come from an advertising blitz; Marvel just struck gold with a character that Stan Lee wrote about in Amazing Fantasy #15. Marvel has created thousands of characters since then, most of them forgettable. (Who’s up for a StarBrand movie? C’mon people, work with me.) The ones that are good– or at least popular– survive through a series of writers and artists. The corporate hacks, mocked by Larsen, fundamentally make their audience happy in a way that Larsen either can’t or doesn’t. Writers and artists who work primarily with established characters see them the way that the audience does– interesting on their own merits, and treasured relics. I don’t know what Larsen sees.
TMNT. Closest thing to a pop culture icon created by an independent in the last 20 odd years. Still doesn’t stand up well next to the other icons though.
Particularly since so much of it seems to have been a riff on the ninja culture from Frank Miller’s Daredevil run. I do not mean that disparagingly– really good satire is art. But it would be a little bit surprising if the satire were to become more iconic than its source.
It’s nice to see Erik Larsen ripping off yet another opinion from John Byrne.
Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.
What has Erik Larsen done?
One little nitpick David Bjorlin, Stan Lee AND Steve Ditko created Spider-Man…. and anyone who doesn’t like Walter Simonson’s art is a putz.
Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn’t feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?
Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. 🙂
Luigi Novi: Yeah. But I meant that it’s fine with me if a guy wants to write Superman rather then going out and creating his own Superman clone. If you want to write Captain America then do it. Don’t turn out a book that is Captain America with a different name but a script that only requires a name change to be printed as CA. I, and many others, won’t waste our time on cheap clones of icons that we like. Dig?
Luigi Novi: Of course. But I’m not certain if you dig what I meant by the above comment. If you read the last sentence of the second paragraph of my October 1, 3:33 AM post, I think you’ll understand why I made that comment (and only in jest, hence the smiley).
Jonathan: I guess the past season-and-a-half is nothing to be proud of later, whereas Joss Whedon’s Western-thinly-disguised-as-space-opera is some great original work, because at least Joss invented the characters, or at least pressed the templates into action himself…
Luigi Novi: Well, I don’t know about original, but it was certainly great, and having just seen Serenity just now reaffirms it. Just my opinion. (Haven’t seen BSG, though, but I’ve heard great things about it.)
Luke K.: Okay, my first thought upon reading Larsen’s
“article” was that he really shouldn’t be writing things to be posted on the internet when he’s that drunk.
Luigi Novi: LOL!!!
Jacob: Yes, I get that people are offended, but Larsen didn’t, this time, call anyone out by name.
Luigi Novi: So what? He excoriated an entire group of people that he identified by virtue of a legitimate career choice. If a white supremacist walks down the street and calls black people “ņìggërš”, do you argue that it’s not a big deal because he didn’t call anyone out by name?
Anthony X: What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?
Luigi Novi: No. He is saying–not asking—that anyone who chooses not to self-publish creator-owned work is a “pussy” a “baby,” “pathetic”, and “sucking at the Big Two’s tit.”
Jonathan: Besides, if you’re going to claim Firefly’s superiority based on that, you’re going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup..
Luigi Novi: That was already explained in the pilot. Those people were dumped on planets with little more than blankets and maybe some cattle or horses. They have to live off the land, and are apparently poor. They have some basic tech like vehicles and interstellar communication devices, but otherwise have to make do because they’re not part of the core worlds, where the affluent Alliance holds sway. They probably could have stuff like laser cannons and stuff, but six shooters are probably much cheaper, and people like Mal and the Serenity crew, who are often hard up for work, as well as the people they deal with, can’t afford much better.
David S: Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?
Luigi Novi: I think Larsen was talking about self-publishing your own creations in your own books. Not creating characters in someone else’s book.
Jerry C: It is true that some new blood, icon wise, is missing of late.
Luigi Novi: And why does the industry need new icons. Doesn’t it merely need well-written stories and characters? Who says an industry must continuously produce a new icon every decade? Does the movie industry make new “icons” each decade? Or the TV industry? It makes memorable and successful movies and TV shows and characters, but it doesn’t necessarily make new “icons” every decade. Why should the comic book industry? Again, which is more important? Peter’s great 12 year run on the Hulk, or mere existence of a character like Spawn or Savage Dragon or Hellboy? Is the fact that a character is iconic really the most important thing? Me, I think it’s stories and well-written characters, not necessarily iconic ones. Iconism seems more relevant to historical discussions than ones of quality of entertainment.
I have just one thing to add.
Since the debut of Savage Dragon, howmany times has Erik the red returned to Marvel to work on those characters he obviously would reather leave alone?
Methinks this is a person trying to get himself noticed again??
Ian
Jonathan: Besides, if you’re going to claim Firefly’s superiority based on that, you’re going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup.
Luigi Novi: That was already explained in the pilot. Those people were dumped on planets with little more than blankets and maybe some cattle or horses. They have to live off the land, and are apparently poor. They have some basic tech like vehicles and interstellar communication devices, but otherwise have to make do because they’re not part of the core worlds, where the affluent Alliance holds sway. They probably could have stuff like laser cannons and stuff, but six shooters are probably much cheaper, and people like Mal and the Serenity crew, who are often hard up for work, as well as the people they deal with, can’t afford much better.
But in our world, price out a six-shooter. Unless you’re looking at one of those short-barreled little .38s, you’re probably going to find a semiautomatic pistol is much less expensive, simply because so few six-shooters are made any more.
I still maintain that Joss chose the milieu because it shorthands the whole “frontier culture” mindset in ways that would take pages of exposition otherwise. It rubs me personally the wrong way mostly because when I was six, my favorite uncle gave me a crate of back issues of old sci-fi magazines. I got so sick of writers who thought they could just take an old Western they’d written (or read), change “horse” to “rocket” and “six-shooter” to “ray-gun”, and suddenly have science fiction. (I also got sick of editors who thought it was a great idea…) I know that’s not what Joss is doing with Firefly – but I’ve still got that bad taste in the back of my brain. 😛 However, that has no real bearing on the quality of the show – just as the fact that Ronald Moore started off with Glen Larson’s take on Mormon beliefs does not mean that Ronald turned out the same horrid, boring mess that Larson did.
Hey Luigi, next time you pull quotes from me, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t just pull a tiny snippet of what I wrote. What you essentially did was smear me out of context and I don’t appreciate your follow up with an allusion to racism. Also adding the N-word was a tad-bit strong to prove your disagreeing point. If you don’t agree with me in any shape or fashion, fine, but what I wrote reflected how this recent commentary wasn’t as offensive to his past ones. I wasn’t implying it was equally harmless.
Also, your immediate follow up was “So what?” It kind of excuses my point and dismisses my words, but mentioning that is like pulling tiny snippets of what you wrote so, in fairness, let’s pardon that.
Besides, if you’re going to claim Firefly’s superiority based on that, you’re going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup…
Oh, no, Firefly‘s just as bad. It’s never told a story, as far as I could tell, that couldn’t have been told on gunsmoke. But Galactica‘s such a miserable failure as science fiction that the phrase “better as science-fiction” just doesn’t ever, in any circumstances, apply to it.1
Patrick Calloway:
Leviathan: Okay, we get it. You have a large amount of irrational hatred for a television show. That’s your opinion.
No, I have an entirely rational dislike of the show based on its lazy unwillingness to think an original thought or define its characters in a way that makes sense.
(And I’ll resist the temptation to hoist you upon your own petard of opinions having differing reletive worth.)
I’ll be hoisting you on it shortly.
That does not mean that those who do not agree with you have been fooled
It does when they’re pointing to a cow-flop that’s been spray-painted and say, “Look! I have gold!”
. (Who’s up for a StarBrand movie? C’mon people, work with me.)
I will probably earn scorn and pity for this, but I’d LOVE to see a Starbrand movie. The comic was like a train wreck for the first year, in the best sense of the words “train wreck” and I felt a strange attraction to the quacking girl (so, predictably, she ended up eviscerated. Story of my life…)
Now a KICKERS, INC movie, THAT would suck…
“Or something form mythology where a team of Gods does mighty deeds with each God using his or her special powers?”
well, jason’s argonauts were a group of heroes that all had particular powers (including hercules for strength). and they often were able to use their particular powers (i.e. when orpheus got them past the sirens)…
Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.
Luigi Novi: Of course. But I’m not certain if you dig what I meant by the above comment. If you read the last sentence of the second paragraph of my October 1, 3:33 AM post, I think you’ll understand why I made that comment (and only in jest, hence the smiley).
I know. it wasn’t posted in a nasty way. I read youy wheel post after making mine and thought that, while we had close points, our points went to different issues with recreating the wheel. Sorry if it came off wrong.
Shoulda put a smiley after “Dig?”.
In movies, you have some remakes and the occasional long-running series like James Bond, but for the most part it’s new stuff.
Mostly new stuff? Who are you kidding? The reason why the movies are in an all-time slump is because 90% of what Hollyweird is churning out is either a remake or derivative of something else.
Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.
Hmm. For some reason, my reply was cut off. It should have read, “Yeah, Byrne’s Doom Patrol is so loved by everyone that it’s already been cancelled. LOL.”
None of you know what you are talking about.
Erik Larsen is a visionary. He stands up for what he believes in and always stands behind it publicly. He would never anonymously trash other creators without signing his name.
My run on Aquaman was one of the best, better than the stuff that came before. What the heck is a Charybdis? Savage Dragon is the best book on the market and is obviously by the best creator in the business.
Is it just me or is the above comment written by ‘name withheld’ just a wee bit sad.
Ian
The ‘Name Withheld’ comment looks like a goof, not sad. And if you’ve heard “Wrapped Around Your Finger” you’d have heard of Charybdis (thanks Mr. Sting!)
Brian
“Luigi Novi: And why does the industry need new icons. Doesn’t it merely need well-written stories and characters? Who says an industry must continuously produce a new icon every decade?”
It doesn’t and I’m fine with writers making great stories with any charecter. I’m just looking at one point under all of Erik’s manure and addressing it.
Now I’ll go kinda 180. The industry doesn’t need new icons (yet) but it would be nice to have a few more develope to stand by the older ones. Their creation often adds a frsh breath to an industry or genre. Look at Star Wars. it created a group of icons and, by hitting right across the board, helped both the film industry and the science fiction genre in many ways.
I would love to see a new icon, be it book, hero or even crerator, to come along and bring new attention and readers to comics and breath a fresh new breath into the industry. But, in counter point to Erik, you can’t just snap your fingers and do that or create one just by doing your own book rather then a Big Two book.
Star Wars was one of those rare icons that hit huge from almost day one and never stopped hitting on all gears. The next big icon in movies, TV or comics will likely be a slow build and take a little age to be given the tag, “icon”. And I think its creation would be a good thing.
“The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don’t notice the stories are all stuff you’ve seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on ’em.”
Back in college, when I was making the study of writing and English a part of my education, I came across a statement that essentially said there are only 7 (maybe it was 9) basic stories in human culture. You can mix and match, giving the illusion of more, but when it comes down to it, there’s only so many different stories you can tell before you start becoming derivitive. It’s like DNA…you get 4 blocks, and you can combine them in different ways, and make long streams of them to form a more complex tapestry, but at the end of the day, it’s all the same 4 blocks.
Reading Leviathan’s other comments re: BSG and Firefly, it’s apparant to me that he’s missing the trees for the forest. It sounds like he wants his sci-fi stories to be non-human. I’m sure someone could come up with a TV show that represents a truly alien story…but chances are, our human senses wouldn’t be able to percieve that story in any kind of way that makes sense. I’ll use a new TV show telling an old story as an example: Threshold introduces what seems to be communication attempts from an extraterrestial species that has some senses that we humans do not…thus, when we observe their creations with our human eyes and ears, we fail to fully understand what it is we’re looking at. In the show,they represent this with objects that seems solid, yet also in a constant state of physical flux, constantly changing.
Leviathan, what are some examples of Sci Fi shows that in your opinion tell new stories? Because, as Den suggested, there are no new stories. The anchient Greeks pretty much had the basics of all storytelling down, and they probably got them from some other culture. Hollywood of late has gotten really bad, because they’ve lost sight that it’s HOW you tell the story that matters. The story itself isn’t new, and it never will be.
Look at some recent examples of movies that provided some surprises: The First Blair Witch, and the Sixth Sense. Are the stories new at all? Not really. Both are pretty much ghost stories. It’s HOW they told the story that made them fresh.
BSG isn’t doing anything new…being a modern version of an old TV show, how could it be? Neither is any other show. Star Trek, TNG, can essentially be seen as a retread of the expulsion of Eden story…the Federation represents a utopia dream of Eden, where money isn’t even used any more, yet we see our characters ranging around the fringe of space where that utopia no longer exists, or maybe never did.
Re: Battlestar Galactica and Firefly. I can understand Leviathan’s frustration about the use of contemporary clothing, names, and vehicles on the show. To me, that does serve to break the illusion that the people are supposed to be from an alien culture that diverged from ours thousands of years ago. But that is balanced on the other hand by the complex and intriguing plots. So on the whole, the show keeps drawing me back in to see what happens next.
As for Firefly, my biggest rip on the show was similar: Whedon’s usage of wild west tropes to create the appearance that space would have a frontier culture. The problem was that he lifted the costumes and mannerisms out of shows like Gunsmoke wholesale. The result was a metaphor that was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Again, what drew me back week after week was the intriguing story of the opressive Alliance and how they had to stay one step ahead of it.
I haven’t seen Serenity yet, but I plan on it. I’ve heard that Whedon toned down the Gunsmoke elements, so we shall see how that shakes out in the end.
Certain characters are iconic, but do you really think the were designed that way, or did they succeed because they happened to fall into iconosism? Were S&S purposefully drawing from Herc, Doc, etc for Supes? (I do think the Kane drew directly from the influences you named.) Which came first, Jay Garrick’s super-speed or the costume design? He doesn’t have much else in common with the messenger god…
While I tend to think the early creators may have ripped other ideas (which likely ripped other ideas that made their way back to icons), I doubt they set out to create them in iconic fashion. What’s wonderful is that through the years, they were imbued with iconic attributes through other writers knowingly and unknowningly (face it, Moore, David, Sims, and a few others bring a much more literary background to their writing than most of the usual writing suspects).
Bill, I’ve wondered about the lack of a graphic Doc Savage as well and decided that the pulp fiction heroes just aren’t visual enough to support a comic book existance. To make them do so would be to make them someone else (hey! Like Superman or Batman ;0) ). I would like a good movie about Doc, but I don’t think he’s very well known anymore…
It’s quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others.
The thing is, I’m pretty sure Larsen would agree that he isn’t blameless, or clean himself, but a ranting confessional would be pointless; and to be honest you are just as guilty of pointing out things you your self are guilty of, its called being human.
Personally I ignored the hypocrisy, and let it inspire me. I think most of you are mad because he’s talking about you, deep down you know you are taking the easy way.
I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe. (God marvel is actually bringing back the cover enhancements again, did they ever go away? “gold standard” *rolls eyes*) I think those of you that contribute to this ongoing problem should be ashamed of your selves.
Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today ‘creators’ have wised up, and don’t pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won’t see near a dime for it.
Leviathan wrote:
“No, I have an entirely rational dislike of the show based on its lazy unwillingness to think an original thought or define its characters in a way that makes sense.”
I don’t get the character complaint – they seem well-defined, make sense to me, and seem pretty believable (or believable enough for a work of fiction).
And I don’t think the similarities with Earth culture, politics and tech represent any kind of “lazy unwillingness to think an original thought.” It’s more like a deliberate creative decision that stems from the creators’ intention, from what they want the show to do. Seems like the very opposite of laziness to me.
And heck, if you wanted to attack the show as not being “real” sci fi, point to the FTL drives, sound in some of the space exteriors, etc.
“It does when they’re pointing to a cow-flop that’s been spray-painted and say, “Look! I have gold!””
That may be, but you’ve yet to show in any way that’s convincing that that’s the case with the new BG. Sorry, I don’t see, based on what you’ve written, how your low opinion of the show is worth more than the opinion of those who like it.
For what it’s worth, I find both “Firefly” and “Battlestar” to be engaging and entertaining. Why? Because I like the characters. I’ve seen creators build unbelievably involved worlds, populated with characters who are an afterthought. You can’t find two commanders as different as Adama and Mal, and yet they’re both men of honor, which just goes to show how far the term can be stretched.
And by the way, I think you’ll find that there’s just about no story in the WORLD that can’t be told as a western. The Seven Samurai became a western. The original Star Wars had huge western elements, right down to the bar fight. “Unforgiven,” on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch. A lot of SF is westerns with blasters instead of guns. “Firefly” was just more honest about it (although the network-imposed train robbery story that launched it was a bit too on-the-nose for me. I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn’t have left quite such a bad taste in people’s mouths.)
And if you think “Serenity” could have been a western…no. Definitely not.
PAD
“It’s quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others.”
“I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe.”
No, a number of posts have pointed out that there is a difference between the message and the way it is delivered. However, it is not the fault of the person who is the intended receiver of a truth for ignoring it if the delivery of that truth is sent out in the most petulant and insulting manner by a person who has a long history of making pointless statements and rants in ever increasingly petty manners over time. If you make yourself look the fool and the brat until no one cares to pay attention 99% of the time then you have no one to blame but yourself when a good idea or point is ignored because it’s written off with all your other pointless and petty rants. Erik never has and, it seems, never will learn this.
“Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today ‘creators’ have wised up, and don’t pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won’t see near a dime for it.”
Ah, a statement that shows both ignorance of the medium and the asininely insulting manner that gets Erik’s points written off so easily.
Kirby, Ditko, Kane, Lee, Simon, etc. all cited other major icons and figures as the influence or sources for their greatest works. Their creations were not so much original as they were fresh packages placed onto iconic characters or traits of several iconic characters from the past.
Not that skill and talent didn’t play into it. There were a number of other creations that came from the same source material that never made it as big as some of the others. It, like the problem of Erik’s point making, is largely dependent on how you present something as much as what you present.
Batman, The Shadow, The Spider and other share some common heritage. Batman, with a pedigree including The Shadow, Zorro, Doc Savage and other pulp crime fighters, was presented better and had the right mix of concepts to grow bigger then his roots. The sum being greater then the parts and all.
Now, about that “today ‘creators’ have wised up, and don’t pour tons of drive and creativity” bit. How stupidly insulting do you really want to prove yourself to be. you show up on PAD’s site, one of today’s creators, and basically accuse him and others of dogging it? I don’t believe for a second that any of the writers and artists that I pay my money for are out there deliberately giving me anything less then their best effort for me to plunk down my hard earned cash for.
Also, you say that it is ignorant of some to focus on the hypocrisy of Erik’s statements. Here is a perfect example of how Erik’s words do not match his actions and how he damages creations rather then helps them. You will never convince me that his run on Aquaman was anything other then an attempt to prove what a brat he can be by destroying the work of another creator.
PAD was giving Aquaman his first big infusion of fresh blood and fresh attention in years. He was taking Aquaman back to some of his roots as well as infusing other mythology into him to create a strong and distinctive character that may have had the chance to grow into a new, mythic comic icon. He was creating something great. Erik the Brat came in, after publicly attacking PAD and making fun of his Aquaman work, and systematically destroyed everything that was built by PAD and sank both the character and the book’s sales in the doing. He then grabbed his toys and went home without creating anything to counter the damage and distruction he did.
Pad was a creator who gave it his all on a company owned book and brought the character and it’s sale numbers to new heights. Erik was a brattish, petty destroyer of the creation process and of the character. Because of those actions and many more like it, Erik has shot himself in the foot and lost the privilege to stand up and make declarations like he did and expect anybody to listen or take him that seriously. Some of us may still look for a good point in all the manure but most will not and have no reason to do so.
His fault. Not ours.
Say, here’s a counterpoint to the “only original creations, done by their creator, can truly be the best” idea: Isn’t it more challenging to draft a new and exciting story that gets readers excited with an old, tired character, one that fans think they’ve “seen it all” with before? I never read PAD’s Aquaman work, but from others’ comments, it seems that it had this exact infusion of new life into a deadend character that I’m talking about. Anyone can come up with a new character…I’m sure just about all of us posting here have done it at some point. Larson has done it with Savage Dragon. And since it’s his creation, he’s free to tell whatever story he wants to…but isn’t he essentially just telling stories that he’d want to tell with, say Hulk?
As a writer, I suppose you could find the restrictions placed on you by the owner of a character restraining. On the other hand, I think it shows the level of a writer’s talent to be able to tell a compelling story when you can’t do X, kill Y, or change Z.
Still, this is all just the “I jumped over the creek without getting my feet you, you losers, why can’t you do it, too” mentality applied to comics. Some of us are just fine and dandy on this side of the creek. We don’t need to get our new shoes wet to find out that jumping over the creek isn’t such a big deal after all.
> I was as happy as Scott that they brought Jean Grey back.
That makes one of us. I hated it and skipped X-FACTOR entirely because of it. The Dark hoenix storyline was one of the most memorable in all my comics-reading years and bringing her back to life after her tragic sacrifice made a travesty of the whole thing for me.
>Who’s up for a StarBrand movie?
Me! Me! And, yes, I was a fan of Duck, too. Pity the series went haywire after the first year and soon ended up in the dumpster. The Annual which had the major continuity error of giving the character power blasts which he never had before or since wasn’t a great move either.
>I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn’t have left quite such a bad taste in people’s mouths.
It’s what killed it for me. Too, I concur with the Wild West look to the series being too silly to be taken seriously. If you’ve got interstellar travel that’s cheap enough for freelancers to afford, there’s no such thing as an out-of-the-way colony. Unless it is outright lost off the charts, people will go there and there will be a steady flow of modern supplies. And even otherwise dirt-poor indian tribes found a demand for some of their art and hand-made trinkets. So, unless everyone there is dumber than a rock, they’ll find SOMETHING someone somewheres else will want in trade.
“It’s quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others.”
There is no “truth” to saying that writers who are content to be working on company-owned characters are gutless. It is an opinion at best, and an insulting opinion at worst. The sheer act of producing work, signing your name to it, and then sending it out there for people to diss as they see fit, requires vast degrees of nerve. Like the work, don’t like the work as you see fit. But don’t start calling people gutless simply because they’re not producing work YOU want to see (or, more on point to Larsen, work that he can publish.)
“The thing is, I’m pretty sure Larsen would agree that he isn’t blameless, or clean himself, but a ranting confessional would be pointless; and to be honest you are just as guilty of pointing out things you your self are guilty of, its called being human.”
Hypocrisy usually is. Bottom line, if you’re criticizing people for something that you yourself do, you dámņëd well better be able to (a) defend it or (b) explain the difference. Because the first rule of blasting other people is the concept of “clean hands.” That because your hands are clean, you have the moral high ground from which to bìŧçh out people for certain behavior. That’s why it’s always thuddingly on point when, say, a high-profile Bible thumper who trashes others for lewd behavior gets caught with his pants down humping a prostitute in a dingy motel room.
“Personally I ignored the hypocrisy, and let it inspire me. I think most of you are mad because he’s talking about you, deep down you know you are taking the easy way.”
Considering I was producing creator owned material before Erik Larsen was pencilling books, I’m thinking I’m not taking any easy way…and again, by the way, referring to working with company-owned characters as “the easy way” displays mind-numbing ignorance of the difficulties in working with company-owned characters. I had to write three position papers and attend a major editorial sit down to convince DC to let me replace Aquaman’s hand with a harpoon. If I want to cut off the Fallen Angel’s hand and replace it with a sword, I write the script, period. So don’t go talkign to ME about “the easy way.”
“I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe.”
That’s a different argument. How about railing against the fans who don’t buy material that’s new and different and retailers who don’t order it, rather than insulting writers who are living out their dream and getting health care besides.
“(God marvel is actually bringing back the cover enhancements again, did they ever go away? “gold standard” *rolls eyes*)”
Yeah, well guess what. They work. So go roll your eyes at your fellow fans for supporting it.
“I think those of you that contribute to this ongoing problem should be ashamed of your selves.
Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today ‘creators’ have wised up, and don’t pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won’t see near a dime for it.”
You come to my website and tell me that I haven’t poured tons of drive and creativity into twenty years’ worth of work–that I’ve been basically cheating the fans and my publishers of my best effort–because I don’t own it, and you have the NERVE to say that I SHOULD BE ASHAMED of MYSELF? I mean, who else are you referring to when you say “those of you.” Unless I’m missing something, I’m the only person here who regularly turns out comic book work-for-hire superhero material. You think my upcoming work on FNSM or X-Factor isn’t going to represent my best effort? Your beloved Erik Larsen, years ago, stated that “in many ways” he and his pals were “holding back”, and *I’m* the one you accuse of not giving 110% while Erik goes around insulting people because they’re not producing work he can sell–which you’re okay with.
Your priorities are completely out of whack, and YOU are the one who should be ashamed of your behavior. Not the guys who are trying to earn a living doing something they love. But you for condemning them for doing so.
PAD