Blogs:

Newsarama Blogs Home > Article: Reactions to the Kirkman video

Reactions to the Kirkman video

August 15th, 2008
Author JK Parkin

Robert Kirkman

Two days ago Comic Book Resources posted a video editorial from Image partner Robert Kirkman — “a call to arms for fellow creators to focus solely on their original stories, instead of the licensed work from the big 2 comic book companies, Marvel and DC,” according to John Siuntres of Word Balloons.

Since then, folks have been talking, which of course is always the point of something like this. Here’s where folks are speaking their minds …

The most active and probably most interesting discussion, which Stephanie Chan pointed out to me, is over at the Bendis Board. It’s over 40 pages of comments (probably more by now) and features comments from Randy Jarrell, B. Clay Moore, Patrick Zircher, Andy Kuhn, C.B. Cebulski, Ed Brubaker and Brian Michael Bendis, among many others.

From that thread, Cebulski — who writes for both Marvel and Image:

Robert makes a lot of good points and I find myself agreeing with so much of what he’s saying here. However, there is one place where I strongly disagree with him and that’s where he says “take the plunge and only do creator-owned work. If you give people the option of Spider-Man or your creator-owned book… they’ll choose Spider-Man, that’s something time-tested versus something new. New has to be the only option.”

Creator-owned in no way has to be the only option. It should not be the only option. Today’s comic industry is not the same place it was all those years ago when the top-tier creators left Marvel and formed Image, and people should not be lead to believe so. The financial realities almost make it next to impossible in this day and age.

Instead, there’s a balance that each creator can find and maintain between work-for-hire and creator-owned comics in today’s market place. There are any number of creators who are currently successfully doing it (I love working for both Image and Marvel and wouldn’t want to sacrifice my love for either!) and many more creators who should be doing it. Robert is totally right in that regard; we need more big name writers and artists doing creator-owned comics, and I would love for them to join us at Image! But I also think that any creator who chooses to do so also needs to be openly and honestly informed about not just the benefits (higher royalties, merchandising, movie deals), but also the risks that are involved in creator-owned publishing (no upfront page rates, lower sales, decreased original art values). Not everyone makes money right off the bat from creator-owned books, especially the artists. And especially when original art sales have come to factor so heavily into the family incomes of comic book artists these days …

Bendis — who writes for Marvel and owns Powers:

coming soon from image comics: MASSIVE GENERALIZATIONS!!

Brubaker, who does licensed comics like Daredevil and original comics like Criminal:

It goes back to the pulps, too, and the way character ownership was done back then, the workshop/sweatshop systems people worked under… Comics grew out of that, and that company owns everything mindset came with it.

Let’s remember, too, that it only took the image founders about five minutes to start their own work-for-hire systems. So, it’s not like they didn’t see why the big two did it in the first place.

Jarrell, managing editor at Oni:

Like others have said, I don’t think this has to be an EITHER/OR argument.

But I think Robert was trying to open up a discussion about how to best serve and promote the industry and the craft.

Here is the best way that I would describe it in music terms:

Doing work for hire books is like playing covers in a cover band.
Doing creator-owned work (or original content) is writing and performing your own music.

There is a lot to be said about being a cover band. You can get regular gigs. You can hone your craft. People are instantly familiar with the songs you are performing. You can get invited to play all sorts of weddings, proms, etc. You can fill some pretty decent sized bars and clubs. Hell… you even get laid. It can be a good living. In fact, some of my favorite songs are brilliant covers.

Now if you write and perform your own music, there are plenty of obstacles. The gigs may not be as regular. People won’t instantly connect with the music because it will all be new to them. You may fail completely. But if you succeed, you won’t just be playing weddings, proms, and bars… you can fill theaters, arenas, and stadiums. When is the last time you heard of a cover band filling an arena? Creating original content has a much higher potential for an economic return.

The great thing is that you can often do both. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones started out as cover bands and continued to play covers throughout their careers. But if they had stuck to just covers, nobody would be talking about them, now would they?

The comics industry, like the music industry, is best served by new original content. Covers and new takes on old properties have their place. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn’t have superhero comics. But the industry as a whole is better served by fresh voices, fresh perspectives, and fresh content.

The thread on WhiteChapel isn’t quite as active, but former Walking Dead artist Tony Moore weighs in:

Kirkman and i have had our disagreements in the past, but i think his intent here is right. The industry is amazingly stagnant and the creator-owned market is taking huge hits and dying. The overall market is up, but the landscape is harsh and the sales figures are polarized. The lunchbox heroes are doing pretty good, but there are remarkably few out there striving to bring something new to the table.

And on the Comics Should Be Good blog at CBR, Jay Faerber, who writes (and owns) several Image titles, tries to add some clarity in the comment section of this post:

I can’t speak for Robert, but the way I understood his editorial was that it’s not enough to just “dabble” in creator-owned work. Why do three or four Marvel / DC books and one creator-owned book? Why not do the opposite, and put the emphasis on creator-owned work? Guys like Kirkman, Ellis, and Vaughan are able to do this, and make a fine living off of their creator-owned work.

And finally, in the comments section of The Beat’s post on the video, Lea Hernandez, who writes and owns her own comics, points out that this line of thinking isn’t exactly new:

Here’s hoping that Kirkman saying what I and others have been saying as long as I’ve been in comics (O HAI twenty-two years, three GNs, two series, two collections, and Comic Book Tattoo) is a push for people trying to make that decision.

We’ve had the tools in place (self-published w/o the hurdles of up-front cost and satisfying Diamond and convincing retailers to buy (Image and the web)) for at least ten years.

And finally Leigh Walton, who works at Top Shelf:

It just seems like this message is already out there. Mark Millar’s regular announcements of his enormous financial success are hard to miss. Ellis has made a career out of cursing the backwards thinking of the American comics market and (rightly) insisting on the moral superiority of creator-owned work. It kind of seems like at this point, people have made their decisions. Most creators who are interested in this sort of thing are already in the trenches trying to make it work; I suspect their answer to Kirkman’s question of “why aren’t there more Hellboys and Walking Deads?” is “I would very much like for my book to be a Hellboy or Walking Dead, thanks for asking.”

While there are plenty of folks on both sides of the debate, two themes unrelated to that debate that seem to keep coming up include:

1) The Marvel Adventures line isn’t talking down to kids.
2) The banjo music in the video was kind of odd and maybe scary, and the overall production value of the piece was kind of crappy.

Personally I thought the production was fine for what it was, as the message outweighed any flaws in how it was delivered. It certainly didn’t keep me from watching the whole thing. But I’ll agree about the Deliverance music.

 
15 Responses to “Reactions to the Kirkman video”
  1. johnny zito Says:

    I don’t know that there was any inherent value to him making a video vs making a comic or propaganda poster(s) as part of a campaign to promote creator owned stuff.

    Additionally, you aren’t going to save the industry by getting established/popular writers more work. Image should concentrate on fostering new talent (as they have) instead of trying to poach ‘names’ from marvel and dc.

  2. There's No Nerd Like Coyle, Part 2 Says:

    A REALLY innovative Kirkman project would be a wife character who isn’t an a) insufferable shrew, b) self-pitying drunk, or c) killed off to motivate the plot.

  3. ElCoyote's Prophet Says:

    It’s kind of pathetic, really. He’s trying to poach names and pretending it’s about new things.

    Nothing Kirkman himself has done is that revolutionary.

    Walking Dead? Really frickin’ long Romero Dead movie.

    Invincible? Superboy.

    Brit? Wolverine without claws. And hasn’t he hired a writer for that one? FULL OF SHIT HYPOCRITE!

    BattlePope? Never read it, sounds incredibly stupid.

  4. Nick Marino Says:

    I LOVE MARVEL ADVENTURES COMICS!!!! I’m not a kid, so I can’t say if they talk down to kids or not. I rarely find them talking down to me, so I would assume they’re not talking down to kids. But then again, you never know…

  5. Dan Says:

    Robert Kirkman’s just on point…

  6. The Ugly American Says:

    Are they calling it The Kirkmanifesto yet?

    Because they should.

  7. Mark Engblom Says:

    Kirkman. Guy gets hitched to Image and all of a sudden he’s the Dali Lama of the comics biz? How does that work?

  8. Fred Says:

    ElCoyote’s Prophet wrote:

    “It’s kind of pathetic, really. He’s trying to poach names and pretending it’s about new things.”

    Check the video again. Kirkman is encouraging writers to do creator-owned work for whatever publishers they choose.

    “Nothing Kirkman himself has done is that revolutionary.

    Walking Dead? Really frickin’ long Romero Dead movie.”

    And Alan Moore’s Watchmen are just knockoffs of DC’s Charlton superheroes (e.g., Question)

    “Invincible? Superboy.”

    I don’t recall Superboy:

    * Being the son of Superman

    *Learning his father is a double agent for a race of alien Super Nazis bent on conquering Earth.

    *Having a little brother, who is his Superman’s love child by another woman.

    And so on.

    “Brit? Wolverine without claws. And hasn’t he hired a writer for that one? FULL OF SHIT HYPOCRITE!”

    Wolverine is the movie character Dirty Harry with claws instead of a Smith & Wesson.

    The bottom line is that ALL comic creators borrow (steal?) ideas from other creators. This is a tradition that’s as old as the medium. So, Kirkman is hardly a hypocrite.

  9. Fred Says:

    Dan wrote

    “Robert Kirkman’s just on point…”

    Exactly.

    All Kirkman said is that creators should mix up their work between self-owned and corporate owned projects. That way they can keep cranking out fresh ideas as well as ensure they have a job if the “Big Two” thinks they’re no longer hot.

    Hollywood actors do this all the time. An excellent example is Will Smith who used his big break in ID4 as a springboard to star in more blockbuster films. After amassing enough wealth and name recognition, Smith co-founded his own production company, Overbrook, to invest in and sometime star in films he was really interested in. Thus, Smith brings in fresh ideas, opens the door for new actors, and gets a steady paycheck no matter the economic conditions.

    So, why is the idea of comic creators not working just for Marvel and DC so controversial? Kirkman’s idea sounds beneficial to not only creators, but publishers, retailers and fans as well.

    Let’s be real here: the only really popular superheroes younger than 20 years old have been cranked out by movie studios (Hancock, Incredibles), cartoons (Ben 10) and live-action TV (Heroes). The medium that spawned superheroes, comics, have lately been behind the creative curve.

  10. Steve Ekstrom Says:

    The “banjo music”…(laugh)

    …is actually from Nine Inch Nails’ “Ghosts I-IV”. It’s 36 tracks of studio recorded music that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.

    Basically, it’s free music Nine Inch Nails released last February for people to use in profit-free media projects.

    The track in question is track #28.

    I’m actually using a track from this album for the trailer of my next 12 page comic book story.

    To get to the Kirkman video, I think he’s taking a bold step to point out an elephant that’s been in the room for a long time; it’s just that everyone has gotten used to the elephant being there–and stopped talking about him. Granted, there are some generalizations that are somewhat arguable–but what’s wrong with the idea of saying, “Hey we’re creative people–we shouldn’t rest on our laurels. Let’s make new ideas!”

    I’m not saying everyone should shun the ‘Big 2′–far from it, that’s a bit extreme, certainly; but, as a guy trying to break-in to comics in general (not just Big 2 stuff), it’s become even harder to get out there because the independent market isn’t strong enough to take the amount of risks that corporate comics take for 6-12 months when an idea doesn’t grow legs and succeed.

    BUT–if more guys like Mark Millar, Mike Mignola, Frank Miller, and Robert Kirkman got out there–and produced properties that brought even a modicum of success, I think more people would follow suit. Independent companies would flourish and be able to take bigger (albeit calculated) risks on new properties. It all seems easy in theory, of course…

    The risk is tough–but isn’t the longevity of this wonderful medium worth it?

    Hey, I’m working on a creator-owned project–and I’m a nobody still. :) I haven’t succeeded yet–but the struggle has taught me a lot about this business and myself.

    I think Kirkman isn’t out of his mind–I think he’s a maverick; he has been since he started.

  11. Zonked! Says:

    @Fred:
    It’s hilarious a Kirkmanfan trying to knock Alan Moore’s projects when Kirkman’ crappy-ass projects are nothing but ABOUT:

    Zombies.
    A Superman Ripoff
    A Secret Agent, god knows who is power is.
    A wolfman meets Batman type hero - very fucking original, really.
    Did i mention Zombies? Because that’s all of his projects described to a T.

  12. Eric Arsenault Says:

    Theres really some stupid responses here, from people who judge Kirkman before they probably have ever read anything by him (Non Marvel)

    He raises a lot of good points; its all about balance, theres so many talented creators who are just happy to work on superheroes and do one personnal project from time to time.

    I wish those talented people would have a higher percentage of creator owned projects.

  13. ElCoyote's Prophet Says:

    I’m not gonna take advice from a guy who thinks ripping off Werewolf By Night is a great idea.

    Or who tells people not to do work for hire while he’s hired out one of his books(Brit has another writer now).

  14. Jason Caskey Says:

    Agree with him or not, Kirkman IS getting people talking. Its good for the industry…and good for Robert Kirkman

  15. Kevin H. Says:

    Most of the people defending Kirkman’s manifesto are toning it down. He literally said that top creators should cease doing work for Marvel & DC to make only creator-owned stuff. So he didn’t raise a good point about balance that allows for creators who are just happy to do work-for-hire and dabble in creator-owned stuff.

    And he isn’t trying to poach? He gave Dark Horse and Image as the “fan-men” options.

    It is, also, worth stressing that he’s basically asking all the companies to meet and work towards practicing collusion. That is what you have if you get Marvel & DC to agree not to employ name creators. His manifesto is naive to a HUGE FAULT and people should really stop attributing their own moderate thoughts to his speech that contained nothing but extreme positions.

Leave a Reply »