I think Rocket would be a better fit for Teen Titans then JLA. She is Icon’s Teenage side kick after all.

(B) violates absolutely no legal, moral, or ethical business codes

I’m not sure what a “business code” is in this case, but this is probably the crux of our disagreement. I’m sure that this kinda thing CAN be done in a way I’d consider moral. But if it’s done by (say) giving a false impression that leaves someone jerked around and lied too, or (say) shooting the president of a rival company in the head, then I would consider that immoral.

I’d judge morality on a case-by-case basis.

Again, the fact that it pisses you off or deprives you of the comics you want to read is not a breach of logic or morality. And really, that’s what all of your arguments boil down to.

No. It’s not. I was annoyed at first, but I do have thousands and thousands and thousands of comics on my “to read” list, so it’s not gonna make a huge impact on my life. “Not getting the comics I want to read” wouldn’t make the top two million on the “things I’m pissed off about” list.

Rob – That… that’s certainly a possibility. I’ll edit it in.

McDuffie changed the deal after getting fired and DC’s hands are tied. He is big on creative control. If he felt like he wouldn’t get that after being let go, he could have decided to change things at the last minute. Dan D. probably ran his mouth too soon on the news before things were officially set up.

Change happens.

Kalrorama – I’m just not following your logic, and I don’t think I’m ever going to be – You don’t even seem to be arguing that this is justified or sensible or that this was good launch, just that behavior like possibility 3 happens in film all the time.

Well, if you’re really interested in following my logic, the first place to start would be to separate what I said from what you said. I never said anything about how often it happens in film. That was you. I never considered anything about the film industry in my argument. Again, that was you. What I said is that a company buying up assets to keep them off the market and out of competitor’s hands is a common business practice whose applicability is not limited to any particular industry. It’s done frequently in all kinds of businesses to curtail competition. And it often works. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot or should not be done in the comics industry. It’s a bottom line business decision and the comics industry is a business. Period.

Which is absolutely true.

And absolutely irrelevant to my point (And, really, doesn’t do much to help yours, either, so I don’t see why you keep bringing it up).

But that’s a long way from a moral or logical justification for what’s happening here.

If that had been DC’s strategy (and I reiterate that I doubt that it was) its use would be wholly justified by the simple and obvious fact that such a strategy (A) has proven effective in a number of business settings and (B) violates absolutely no legal, moral, or ethical business codes. And as long as that’s the case, no other moral or logical justification is needed. Again, the fact that it pisses you off or deprives you of the comics you want to read is not a breach of logic or morality. And really, that’s what all of your arguments boil down to.

Kalrorama – I’m just not following your logic, and I don’t think I’m ever going to be – You don’t even seem to be arguing that this is justified or sensible or that this was good launch, just that behavior like possibility 3 happens in film all the time.

Well, if you’re really interested in following my logic, the first place to start would be to separate what I said from what you said. I never said anything about how often it happens in film. That was you. I never considered anything about the film industry in my argument. Again, that was you. What I I said that a company buying up assets to keep them off the market and out of competitor’s hands is a common business practice whose applicability is not limited to any particular industry. It’s done frequently in all kinds of businesses to curtail competition. And it often works. Therefore there is no reason why it cannot or should not be done in the comics industry. It’s a bottom line business decision and the comics industry is a business. Period.

Which is absolutely true.

And absolutely irrelevant to my point (And, really, doesn’t do much to help yours, either, so I don’t see why you keep bringing it up).

But that’s a long way from a moral or logical justification for what’s happening here.

If that had been DC’s strategy (and I reiterate that I doubt that it was) its use would be wholly justified by the simple and obvious fact that such a strategy (A) has proven effective in a number of business settings and (B) violates absolutely no legal, moral, or ethical business codes. And as long as that’s the case, no other moral or logical justification is needed. Again, the fact that it pisses you off or deprives you of the comics you want to read is not a breach of logic or morality. And really, that’s what all of your arguments boil down to.

I truly, honestly loathe the idea that every character has to co-exist with the DCU and get crammed into the multiple tiers below Superman, Batman, etc. There’s a reason we haven’t had a great Captain Marvel comic in decades until Jeff Smith’s.

Which is absolutely true.

But that’s a long way from a moral or logical justification for what’s happening here.

No, it’s really not.

Screenwriting for Hollywood strikes me as analagous to writing (and getting fired from) Justice League comics. If you’ve bothered to do a modicum of research, you KNOW that your work is probably gonna sit in a drawer somewhere, and if it makes it up onto the screen it’s probably going to be changed from what you wrote.

Screenwriters, like hired corporate comic scribes, have studied the market, and understand the procedure.

(Note that this STILL strikes me as a shitty and disrespectful way for the studios to do business.)

With the Milestone group the situation is different. DC strongly implied that they had huge publishing plans for the Milestone line, and McDuffie (at least) clearly believed this to be true. In comics, in virtually every case “We want to license/publish your intellectual property” MEANS “we want to license/publish your intellectual property.” There’s no reason, based on a working knowledge of the industry, to assume that your project is gonna be shelved.

Again, not really hitting the mark. To the extent that that explanation has any validity, it’s only valid in explaining why the decision may be a puzzlement to the people at Milestone (and, quite honestly, I doubt they’d be that puzzled by it, being that they’re all veterans of the entertainment industry and media). But that has nothing to do with my point. I was talking about the decisionmaking process by DC Comics. From their end, there are potentially valid reasons for buying up properties to stick on the back burner. Whether or not anyone else agrees with that reasoning or has encountered it before is irrelevant. The only thing that matters from DC’s perspective (and the whole, apparent, point of your commentary was to figure out their reasoning) there would be valid reasons for buying the character with the intention to keep them off the marketplace. But, again, I don’t believe that was their actual intention.

Also, this:

There’s no reason, based on a working knowledge of the industry, to assume that your project is gonna be shelved.

Is just wrong. Comic book projects get announced only to be later delayed or shelved quite frequently. Not even close to a new or rare occurrence. There’s no reason for creators to assume it’s going to happen, but it’s certainly happened enough that there’s no reason for them to be shocked if it does.

So when DC makes a huge announcement that they’ve acquired the rights to publish your characters, and seem excited about publishing your characters, industry precedent (almost without exception) suggests that they are going to publish your damn characters.

And, again, unless I missed a memo, there’s been no announcement from DC that they’re not planning to ever publish the Milestone characters, period. As I’ve already pointed out, they have published/are publishing some of them now and, last I heard, plans were still in place for the Milestone wrapup miniseries to be written by McDuffie, so they will be publishing them in the future.

So, obviously, when DC strongly goes against industry precedent, people are gonna feel jerked around.

I don’t see how that’s “obvious” at all, beyond the fact that, by its very nature, Internet-based fandom has a high probability of loudly complaining about any and everything at the drop of a hat, regardless of the validity of the complaint. But, in that case, (as in most cases) their outrage has little substantive obvious connection to the severity of the actual “offense.”

This would make total sense to me if we were dealing with the merchandising, film, or video game rights to the Milestone characters, which could be a potential gold-mine for someone.

I doubt the Milestone comic characters have any real “goldmine” potential. If they did, then Milestone Media would have put at least a modicum of effort into mining it over the past decade, rather than letting the properties gather dust in a corner of their closet.

But penny ante l’il comics? How much did DC seriously expect to make on the deal, anyway? How can this even be worth there time?

You’re completely missing the point. Assuming that we’re still talking about the hypothetical motivation of DC licensing the Milestone characters just to bury them, then the issue wouldn’t be how much money DC stood to make on the deal. The issue would be how much could they save/avoid losing by restricting the competition. In this hypothetical instance, the reward would not be generating profits, but rather avoiding losses.

And here we’re at an impasse. I don’t see any significant demand for non-Marvel/DC shared universe superhero comics. A quick glance down the top 300 sales charts here at CBR should prove my point here. Given that, spending any more than a negligible amount of resources acquiring the Milestone properties feels like a mistake.

And what makes you think they spent anything more than a negligible amount acquiring them? The characters have been sitting dormant, generating no revenue for a decade. And even when they were being published, they weren’t blowing the doors off sales records. What reason is there to think DC spent a small mint acquiring this stuff? None that I can see.

And *IF* this is there thinking, then why the big ‘ol announcement? It’s like Universal (or whoever) splashing a front-page ad on the cover or Variety (or whatever) saying they’ve acquired the film rights to Twilight (or some-such similar) and not doing anything with it. Gonna make ‘em look a little silly..

And, as I have already said multiple times, I don’t actually think that burying the characters was their prime motivation. I was simply stating that, if it was, such a decision would not be so unprecedented or illogical, or evil as you were working so hard to make it sound.

kalorama
Whether or not it’s been common practice in comics until now is irrelevant to the point.

No, it’s really not.

Screenwriting for Hollywood strikes me as analagous to writing (and getting fired from) Justice League comics. If you’ve bothered to do a modicum of research, you KNOW that your work is probably gonna sit in a drawer somewhere, and if it makes it up onto the screen it’s probably going to be changed from what you wrote.

Screenwriters, like hired corporate comic scribes, have studied the market, and understand the procedure.

(Note that this STILL strikes me as a shitty and disrespectful way for the studios to do business.)

With the Milestone group the situation is different. DC strongly implied that they had huge publishing plans for the Milestone line, and McDuffie (at least) clearly believed this to be true. In comics, in virtually every case “We want to license/publish your intellectual property” MEANS “we want to license/publish your intellectual property.” There’s no reason, based on a working knowledge of the industry, to assume that your project is gonna be shelved.

So when DC makes a huge announcement that they’ve acquired the rights to publish your characters, and seem excited about publishing your characters, industry precedent (almost without exception) suggests that they are going to publish your damn characters.

So, obviously, when DC strongly goes against industry precedent, people are gonna feel jerked around.

The fact is that it’s a common, valid, and proven business tactic, the kind that is not industry specific. Which is not to say that it’s guaranteed to work, or even necessarily the best way to do business. But the suggestion that it’s somehow stupid or morally-bankrupt is invalid. It’s a tactic and strategy that has its place in the business world.

This would make total sense to me if we were dealing with the merchandising, film, or video game rights to the Milestone characters, which could be a potential gold-mine for someone.

But penny ante l’il comics? How much did DC seriously expect to make on the deal, anyway? How can this even be worth there time?

It cuts down on the amount of potential competition in a shrinking marketplace and faltering economy where the fight for consumer dollars is getting harder and harder to win every day. That simple, really.

And here we’re at an impasse. I don’t see any significant demand for non-Marvel/DC shared universe superhero comics. A quick glance down the top 300 sales charts here at CBR should prove my point here. Given that, spending any more than a negligible amount of resources acquiring the Milestone properties feels like a mistake.

And *IF* this is there thinking, then why the big ‘ol announcement? It’s like Universal (or whoever) splashing a front-page ad on the cover or Variety (or whatever) saying they’ve acquired the film rights to Twilight (or some-such similar) and not doing anything with it. Gonna make ‘em look a little silly.

(Ok, I’m far from an expert on movies, and everything I know comes from hanging out with a couple screenwriters in a bar.)

But the more interesting conclusion from this might be old CW: Creativity and storytelling by committee, using massive properties, is really, really hard. And frequently sucks.

I really liked Cisco Kid’s comment: “Maybe Grant Morrison will have a great idea for Superman in 2 years that’s too controversial, so they ask him to substitute Icon.” DC execs know (or should know) that some of the greatest stuff ever comes from a surprising, skilled writer or artist being handed an old character to chew on. (Sandman, Swamp Thing, etc. etc.) So they gotta keep a good bunch of old characters to chew on.

But like you, I’m impatient. Because, dang it, there just aren’t enough good comics. (IMHO, as always.)

kudos,
d

They are stockpiling the characters for ideas they haven’t had yet. They will make some bucks and generate interest on the properties through the trade paperback market and go from there. Maybe Grant Morrison will have a great idea for Superman in 2 years that’s too controversial, so they ask him to substitute Icon. Or maybe some upstart has a Shadow Cabinet story they have been sitting on since they were a kid and want to tell it – now that story comes to DC.

That sort of thing. It’s all a property grab.

In film, sure, but not in comics. And in film – Well, did I miss a memo? Is anyone NOT arguing that this is an aberrant, immoral practice that’s hurting movies as an art form?

Whether or not it’s been common practice in comics until now is irrelevant to the point. The fact is that it’s a common, valid, and proven business tactic, the kind that is not industry specific. Which is not to say that it’s guaranteed to work, or even necessarily the best way to do business. But the suggestion that it’s somehow stupid or morally-bankrupt is invalid. It’s a tactic and strategy that has its place in the business world.

What’s the logic from DC’s POV? How can they say that spending money to NOT use characters – And we’re not talking particularly high-selling characters – is a shrewd business move? If you want to put that argument forward, you need to explain how this makes any kind of economic sense for anyone.

It cuts down on the amount of potential competition in a shrinking marketplace and faltering economy where the fight for consumer dollars is getting harder and harder to win every day. That simple, really.