I'm going to regret this, but I get approached in public with questions and topic pitches enough that I'm taking them as serious requests to discuss here in the blog.
So, a coworker and I were talking comics and Rob Liefeld's name came up. My coworker asked, as many people (including myself) do, how he keeps getting work. I corrected him by saying that, in fairness, he only keeps getting work with DC because they're the main ones that keep banking on him against all odds (If you need proof, ALL of his New 52 books failed within 8 issues at the beginning of the reboot). As far as Marvel goes, he doesn't do much for them anymore but then again, he doesn't really have to when he keeps beating his chest about how he created Cable and Deadpool.
So, a coworker and I were talking comics and Rob Liefeld's name came up. My coworker asked, as many people (including myself) do, how he keeps getting work. I corrected him by saying that, in fairness, he only keeps getting work with DC because they're the main ones that keep banking on him against all odds (If you need proof, ALL of his New 52 books failed within 8 issues at the beginning of the reboot). As far as Marvel goes, he doesn't do much for them anymore but then again, he doesn't really have to when he keeps beating his chest about how he created Cable and Deadpool.
So, this left my coworker wondering: Does laying claim to being "the creator of..." really hold a lot of weight in comics? And it's a good question. After all, the praise fans shower comic creators with doesn't necessarily translate in every industry the same way. Just ask 90% of game developers.
Honestly, depending on who you ask in the comic industry itself, you might even get mixed answers there, too.
Honestly, depending on who you ask in the comic industry itself, you might even get mixed answers there, too.
So I contacted DC about the mistaken "created by" credit on Vibe. Helpfully, they're removing the "created by" credit entirely.
— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) February 22, 2013
(Before I go on, let me take this moment to say that in terms of compensation and publishers' treatment of their talent, creator credit should ALWAYS matter and that DC treatment of Gerry Conway in this case is indefensible. There's just no two ways about it. However, what we're discussing the semantics of how much it should/shouldn't matter from a reader's perspective.)
Now, my coworker isn't necessarily a die-hard comic reader, but from the outside looking in, his question is completely valid. After all, let's say I create a character that ends up having some minimal success if any at all. Someone else like Scott Snyder comes along, completely retools every aspect of my character and suddenly, it's a huge success and a household name. Do I still get lay claim to being the pioneer in this situation?
Now, my coworker isn't necessarily a die-hard comic reader, but from the outside looking in, his question is completely valid. After all, let's say I create a character that ends up having some minimal success if any at all. Someone else like Scott Snyder comes along, completely retools every aspect of my character and suddenly, it's a huge success and a household name. Do I still get lay claim to being the pioneer in this situation?
Answer: Sure, but not really. In other words, if my character ends up being a cartoon, do I have the right to have my name under the creator credits? Absolutely. Without question. Unless, of course, the studio decides to say something like "based on story written by Scott Snyder" so they can directly credit the mind behind the version people actually liked.
For the ideal situation, let's take Spider-Man. Even in uninitiated circles, you'd have to go pretty far and wide to find someone who didn't know that Stan Lee created Spider-Man. No matter who else writes him and receives tons of well deserved praise for their take on the character (Dan Slott, JMS, Brian Bendis), Stan Lee is the heart and soul of Spider-Man. Why, you ask? Because no matter what changes they made to him or what different avenues, they take him down (give him Spider Cancer, magic totem powers, give his life to kill Norman Osborn, Doctor Spiderpus, selling his marriage to Satan, whatever), all of those stories usually wrap with Spider-Man, perhaps a little wiser and worn for the experience, going back to factory settings. As in "how Stan Lee intended him."
You can even repeat this with Superman. Yeah, we all know he's had a few breaks from the norm
Now, let's plug Rob Liefeld in this formula. Liefeld will forever be tied to Cable and Deadpool mainly because he himself will never let us forget that he created Cable and Deadpool. But as many hands as Deadpool has been in, can we really say that the character as we know him now (basically, the Daffy Duck of Marvel Comics) compared to his first appearances in X-Force and New Mutants really what Liefeld seemed to have in mind? I don't know because I'm not actually in Rob Liefeld's mind, but it sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, speaking of X-Force, another one of Liefeld's brain children, if you look at the line up, their purpose, really anything about them....does the X-Force most people know X-Force to be look anything like the one Liefeld started us off with? Probably not.
So all in all, does being "the creator of..." really matter? Answer: It depends. (Unless you're Rob Liefeld, in which case, not really)
No comments:
Post a Comment