Comics Creators

Here are two articles that provide a lot of food for thought. In the first, Gerry Conway explains how DC Entertainment defines "derivative creations" and it is not pretty. It's not fair, either.

In the second, in an interview, Roy Thomas explains how he created Ultron and Vision and why he tried to not create many characters for Marvel.

I'm not a comic book writer or artist, nor am I otherwise involved in comic book publishing. I'm a reader and don't, therefore, have a stake in any of this. But I do believe fair is fair and creators should be fairly compensated. When many of the older writers and artists toiled at Marvel, DC, etc., there were few merchandising opportunities for their characters and while TV adaptations were a possibility, the blockbuster movie was not as likely, certainly not a big team-up movie with lots of characters. Work-for-hire contracts start off unfair. Most of the time, creating characters to be owned by the companies doesn't seem like a big deal. Unless the character hits big. And gets a movie franchise or is part of one. Or a hit TV show with action figures and the like. And then, the company that owns the character makes a fortune and the creators sit and watch others make money off what they created. And only the comic geeks know who they are.

It's fine that pretty much every Marvel fan knows who Stan Lee is. He sure has an impressive resume of cameos in Marvel Studios movies and TV shows. He even has his own action figure. But what about Roy Thomas?

Actually, I'm pretty impressed that Ed Brubaker, the man who brought Bucky Barnes back to life in the Captain America comic, as the Winter Soldier, got to appear in the movie. And how many people knew that? Or even what he looks like?

I understand the impulse of more and more comics creators to leave the big publishers to make their own comics where they can retain the rights to their creations. Creator-owned comics have made Image my favorite publisher. The variety of talent and stories in Image Comics is amazing, with truly something for everyone. But for anyone starting out, they need to make their rep first and that means toiling for Marvel or DC. And how many independent comics can the market support? The Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, et al remain the characters people know. How many would be willing to try something new and different? I for one will continue to support creator-owned comics by buying all the ones that appeal to me. And now I'm hoping to convince you to do that, too.

Greg Rucka's Lazarus is in development for a TV show. Rucka is a well-established writer of both novels and comics. He and artist Michael Lark created the realm of Lazarus and its characters and own the rights. They will be adequately compensated for their creation. As it should be. Apparently, that's not true for the creative people at DC and Marvel, and that's a shame.

There Are No Words

So DC doesn't want humor in its movies, according to this report. Granted, not every Marvel is the laugh riot Guardians of the Galaxy is, along with its very serious parts, but humor is part of life. Laughing is a very human reaction to things funny or even sad. It's a sign of having fun and it's a way to relieve stress. Batman isn't a funny guy, so Dick Grayson as Robin brought the comic relief. The Batman movies don't have Robin, so yeah, the recent trilogy was pretty dour and that's fine. But Superman? Sheesh. Just because you haven't done a good job with adding in humor doesn't mean you give up. You get better scripts, better directing, and you'll likely end up with better movies.

I guess I found some words for this, after all. ;)

Green Arrow Movie

Good discussion of the planned GA movie over on Pretty, Fizzy Paradise. Here are some of my comments there:

1. I don't watch Smallville, so have no idea who this guy is or what his Green Arrow/Ollie was like.

2. This could be either very good or really awful, depending on the script and director. There's just no way to know right now how this will end up.

3. I'm mostly trying to not think about it. I love Ollie, mostly from his O'Neill/Adams days, but I don't usually like him. I'm just too ambivalent about this right now.

I don't have problems with them doing their own thing with the character. Provided it serves the story and/or characters and the medium and enhances rather than detracts. The changes in the Birds of Prey tv show for example, made little sense. There was no reason to de-age Dinah. Another young character could've been used. That sort of thing becomes a distraction and when the writing mostly sucks, it becomes just one more negative in a long list.

Whereas a change that made sense was to change Wolverine's yellow spandex to a black outfit because Hugh Jackman in yellow on a giant movie screen would've been the distraction rather than a sexy Logan. Plus, Hugh Jackman isn't as beefy as Logan in the comics, so that was one change that came right from the start. What works in print rarely works as well on the screen especially a large screen.

Now it can be argued that you can get so far from the original material that it's hardly worth referring to the original. Why use Green Arrow at all if he won't BE Green Arrow, that sort of thing. But if it's well done and there's a sense of who and what GA is, then I'm fine with it.

I don't feel the need for a GA movie, in prison or not, but if it's made, I want it to be good because that might bring new readers to the comic. And if something's done, you want it done well. I'd like to say I'm reserving judgment or that I'm cautiously optimistic, but the truth is, I'm not thinking about it much, hardly at all. When it comes out, then I'll probably see it. And decide then if I think it should've been filmed.