Kirkman wasn’t “hired” as an Image partner. It’s not a paid gig, and doesn’t increase his income by a dime. It just gives him some say in what the company does, as a whole. None of the Image partners make any money from Image. They make money from the comics they create (and spin-off toys, media, etc.).

Maybe that’s not what you meant by “hired,” but that word seems to have a certain connotation, and I wanted to make sure it’s understood just what being an Image partner means.

Well, sure, as long as you’re also doing work for the Big Two or getting hired as a partner at Image Comics.

He got his work at Marvel, and his Image partnership, after the break out success of Invincible and The Walking Dead.
The creator owned books being successful caused the other two things to happen, not the other way around, hence him being the proof that creator owned books can be a living.

Like I said, I’d like to agree… but, in my opinion… there’s only one way to make comics accessible to the next generation, and the one after that… LOWER THE PRICES.

A Spider-Man comic book should NOT cost as much as a Spider-Man action figure… or a used copy of a Spider-Man video game.

It’s sad, that all the great writing, and great writers wracking their brains on ways to improve the industry… when the main (only?) stumbling block is the horrendously high price tags these books carry.

I agree there should be conferences, and folks should work together… unfortunately, their common enemy at this point is the fact that prices are only going to go up.

Anyhoo… ‘ats all I got. Props to Kirkman for being so bold.

“Fables is one of my all-time, must read series, but Willingham’s mainstream DC stuff (Shadowpact, Robin, and the horrid War Games/War Crimes garbage in Batman) really does the man no justice.”–That’s the biggest problem I have with creator-ownedy types like Willingham doing superhero stuff: they clearly don’t give a crap about the work they’re doing, and it ends up being awful. It’s like putting Garth Ennis on any superhero title that isn’t Punisher or Hitman.

“One thing that irks me is the rally to “save the comic book industry”. What does that mean? Comics as a medium are not going anywhere. Printing and paper may fade away in a generation or two, but the art of words and pictures in sequential storytelling isn’t going anywhere. If self-publishing is a profitable as Kirkman says, then people who want to create will create. Ergo, nothing to save.”–I’m tired of this sentiment. When people are talking about saving the comic book industry, they’re talking about saving the comic book (the “pamphlet,” for snobs), not the computer screen. As Grant Morrison said, you can’t take your computer into the bath with you. Get over your smug self-importance and faux futurism. Read all the eBooks you want, I read Kurt Vonnegut books with hard covers on them, and I take my comics the same damn way.

“Well Kirkman himself is living proof that this isn’t the case, and that one can do creator owned work and make a living off of it”–Well, sure, as long as you’re also doing work for the Big Two or getting hired as a partner at Image Comics.

Admittedly, coming after a well-respected writer like Jay (whose work I actually liked on Titans for what its worth), my statement won’t be anywhere near as strong but oh well: I feel like that statement is broken. Its as if, basically, you’re saying that people don’t really want to write superheroes–they just think they do. That mainstream comics have brainwashed me and once I get in the business I’ll snap out of it and become a “real” writer.

To the contrary, aside from a token idea for Batman or Superman (who don’t even rank in my Top 5 favorite characters) I have every now and again, I don’t have that many ideas FOR my favorite characters. I feel like any story I would come up with has been done already. Most of my ideas are for completely original stuff when I’d like just as much to write superheroes.

As far as this “mission statement”, well…bah I’ll leave it. There are too many snarky fans that have made comments on it already, I’m sure.

I know … I was one of those guys. For the longest time, I wanted to get into comics specifically to write the characters I grew up reading about. And I did! I got to write the Titans and the New Warriors, and some X-titles and some other stuff along the way. And it was fun, but ultimately not fulfilling. Mainly because I had the mistaken impression that the writers were the ones who came up with stories, and at DC and Marvel, that’s just not the case. Sure, writers have input (some more than others). But the main decisions about what you can and can’t do with a character comes from editorial (or sometimes, writers on more popular books).

Here’s an example. When I was writing Titans, Arsenal was one of the characters in the book. I specifically wanted as many characters as possible that weren’t appearing in other titles, so that I (and my editor) had control over how they developed. Well, this was right around the time Kevin Smith was launching Green Arrow, and he decided he was going to use Arsenal. Overnight, Arsenal suddenly belonged to the Green Arrow office. Despite the fact that he hadn’t been part of the Green Arrow series in, what, decades? To me, he was a Titans character. He’d been appearing most often in that book over the years, so it made sense that he fell under the Titans jurisdiction. But obviously, I didn’t get to make that call.

Then I met Anthony Bozzi (who was Image’s marketing director at the time) and a bunch of Image creators, and my eyes were opened to the idea of creating my OWN characters, where I’d be in charge of all of them. I’d never have to ask permission to use a character, or have a character yanked away again. And it literally changed my life. Sure, I’ve still got a big appreciation and fondness for the Teen Titans (to pick one example), so I created Dynamo 5 — my own take on the teenage super-hero team. I’m able to incorporate elements I enjoyed about the Titans, but also add in other influences and character dynamics and plot lines that I want to write about. The end result is something unique, and I own it. Well, co-own it with artist Mahmud Asrar, but you get my point.

Anyway … I know this is turning into my own editorial, but I just wanted to say that I certainly understand the desire to write the Marvel and DC super-heroes we grew up reading. It’s not like I can’t imagine why someone would want to do that. I was very much of the same mindset when I broke in. But in the end — for me, at least — it became much more rewarding to create my own characters.

“Now if creator-owned work was more common, Ellis wouldn’t HAVE to go back to do work for hire to get back on people’s radar – and I think that’s Kirkman’s goal.”

Wouldn’t work except in the rarest of circumstances – say, if someone had the profile of Lee or McFarlane when they went to form Image.

Now, people say that “oh, the Image books sold 150k” and think those were spectacular numbers… but remember what the sales figures were of the books those guys did beforehand. First issues selling in the *millions*. That’s the clout it would take to be able to move to a creator-owned book and not have it hurt your marketability, because no matter what you lose you’re starting from a position so far ahead of everyone else that coming back to earth just turns you into an ordinary, rather than under-the-radar, title.

Because, ultimately, this generation of creators is still the one raised thinking they want to get into the industry to write the big names – Batman, Superman, etc. That *may* change, but fundamentally most people who were comics fans growing up get into comics writing to play with their favourite characters.

Somewhere out there, there’s a kid reading Invincible (okay, older teen… Kirkman has the most gory idea of “all ages” I’ve ever seen) who is thinking up stories for Invincible, and will get into comics to get a chance to tell those stories.

.
Anyway, I’m not saying you’re wrong, or Kirkman are wrong, just that (as you point out) Kirkman’s ideas aren’t necessarily practical. As great as it would be to see more creator-owned work, I don’t know if it’s feasible in the current market.

Well Kirkman himself is living proof that this isn’t the case, and that one can do creator owned work and make a living off of it – even when you take on ‘the big two’ at their own game of super heroes.
That said, he’s also proof that you’ve got to have something unique about what it is you’re doing.

I don’t know how well creator-owned books sell, and I’m happy to take your word that many tpbs sell well. I know Mignola’s Hellboy, Powell’s Goon, Invincible & Walking Dead, Astro City, various creator-owned or semi-owned Vertigo series, and a several I’m not thinking of, sell at, or close to, the Marvel/ DC range. I don’t know if enough creator-owned books could sell enough to keep their owners away from work-for-hire.

Anyway, I’m not saying you’re wrong, or Kirkman are wrong, just that (as you point out) Kirkman’s ideas aren’t necessarily practical. As great as it would be to see more creator-owned work, I don’t know if it’s feasible in the current market.

But all the other companies I’d say are about equal to either one of Marvel or DC.

As to the whole sales thing, what Kirkman is arguing is that until we see it, we won’t know. During the early 1990s, Marvel and DC sold well but Image Comics were ALSO selling comparable numbers to Marvel and DC.

In the 60s to 70s, DC and Marvel did gangbusters in sales, but so did Dell/Western (and before them, Lev Gleason, etc.).

Creator-owned works currently sell a lot, but it’s generally just on the TPB side of things – who’s to say that if more creator-owned single issues by big-name creators were out there, as opposed to the handful we have now, they wouldn’t be selling?

Of course, the “problem” here is that Kirkman’s plan involves Marvel and DC just letting their best-selling creators walk, which he argues will be better for the Big Two in the future, but even if that were true, it sure as hell would screw them in the short term.

I disagree with the notion that creator-owned work being more common = writers & artists. staying on the radar. I hate to think this way, but I believe many people who read Marvel & DC comics only want Marvel & DC comics. Otherwise, creator-owned work would sell a lot more. I’m sure I’m oversimplifying things, but Criminal doesn’t do Captain America numbers.

Since he began his ABC work (which isn’t STRICTLY creator-owned work, but close enough, I’d say), he’s been creator-owned all the way.

And Ellis went back to work-for-hire as a favor, but the noted that doing work-for-hire work raises his profile, causing his creator-owned work to sell better. Ellis, in particular, seems to be the example Kirkman is referring to where he says creator-owned work would sell better if other people were doing it, too.

When Ellis leaves to do just creator-owned work, he effectively “disappears” from the comic book consciousness, and has to do work for hire to be on the public scene again. Now if creator-owned work was more common, Ellis wouldn’t HAVE to go back to do work for hire to get back on people’s radar – and I think that’s Kirkman’s goal.

Geoff Johns did a series called The Possessed, I think, (drawn by Liam McCormack-Sharpe?) which I’ve seen but never read. I think that was creator-owned.