| Author |
|
Joe Mayer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2005
Posts: 1398
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 4:30pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
but he's a bigger name (due to Babylon 5) than Gaiman is.
****
I would argue this only because of the number of times Neil Gaiman has been on the New York Times bestseller's list versus someone who created a show that was saved from syndication cancellation in order to go to a cable network that wanted something sci-fi so they could end up running it into the ground.
Also you have to wonder what interests the creators and what do schedules look like. Joss waned an X-Men story, so Joss got to do an X-Men story. with the schedules as they were, it was probably easier to give him his own title than shuffle everyone around so that he could have his 12 issues. Gaiman and Joe Q went back and forth on a few different ideas before Eternals was decided on. And it just happened that was the best. Its what brainstorming is all about.
I just found this neat lecture that Gaiman gave to Microsoft lasy December. It about 40 minutes, but talks of comics, writing, Babylon 5 and much more.
http://content.digitalwell.washington.edu/msr/external_relea se_talks_12_05_2005/12843/lecture.htm
Edited by Joe Mayer on 30 July 2006 at 5:23pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
GORdon Winiemko
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 5:51pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
<And the "why bother" argument, in the way that you're framing it, could
just as easily apply to the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, or Superman.>
yes i think i could.
the only Spider Hyphen Man i want to look at is the Ditko version. After
that, maybe the Andru and Kane versions. that other guy, who came
along in the 80's, who everybody loves, he was after i stopped bothering.
Ditto the other two. the last FF i was into was JB's. really, there is only so
much new you can do with any of these characters. isn't that why the
continuity -- there it is again! -- has been reset for these characters, in
some cases more than once? or why "hidden" backstory has been filled in?
the last series i was into was X-Statix. taking a very loose concept, or
framework, and creating all new characters and situations with it. and
incidentally where continuity with the rest of the so-called "universe" was
treated in an approppriately irreverent manner. And i wonder, John, is
that an example of what you mean when you say "wink wink"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 5:57pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
there is only so much new you can do with any of these characters
I don't buy that. Keep in mind that I'm not a writer...but it seems to me that an inability to come up with new stories to tell is a fault of the talent, not the characters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Gordon, you pretty much answer the "why bother?" question yourself. Because even if you're rarely interested after the initial runs, things like the Andru and Kane versions of Spider-Man, or JB's Fantastic Four come along. Not to mention that many of these characters (FF, Spider-Man, Incredible Hulk) were, as JB points out, created for an audience that was primarily kids, and that audience would move on every couple of years to something else and a new batch of kids would discover it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
GORdon Winiemko
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 6:39pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
<these characters (FF, Spider-Man, Incredible Hulk) were, as JB points
out, created for an audience that was primarily kids, and that audience
would move on every couple of years to something else and a new batch
of kids would discover it.>
right, i moved on. but at the same time, new kids could just as well get
hooked on what's already been done with the characters, as opposed to
re-treads.
but this is kind of beside the point. I guess if enough people do the
eternals, then it will pass into a kind of "public doman," where it will
cease to seem like kirby's baby. in thinking about this thread, i started
thinking about what it would be like for someone to riff off my work. i
guess the point is that these are characters, and their stories fullfill the
function that stories about greek gods used to do -- ironic, considering
how this thread is about "the return of the gods." i guess if you create a
mythology then it's there for other people to take up -- and, logically,
change.
still, the eternals seems so idiosyncratically kirby, and its cast of
characters so obscure -- well that's where, as with a Ditko property like
Shade, I say, why?
i can't imagine wanting to see shade done by anybody else. i just want to
see those pages from the aborted 9th issue!
on the other hand, i think it would be interesting indeed if Ditko licensed
out Mr. A to somebody to work with. But essentiallly a Mr. A riff was
already done with Rorshack in the Watchmen -- the logical story outcome
of the Objectivist "hero."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:11pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I think creators are much more concious today about contributing to a shared universe. Some become more hesitant, wanting to save certain characters for themselves, others like the idea of adding to the Marvel or DC universe and the idea that 20 or 30 years from now someone else will be writing a character they created. I think that during the period that Kirby created the New Gods and the Eternals there wasn't the same type of independent market that there is today, so it wouldn't have been as viable for him to keep the characters and do them on his own.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4620
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:16pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Chad Carter wrote:
| And as far as the Hulk appearance in Kirby's Eternals...that was most
definitely forced on Kirby. Every Marvel comic of the day was cashing
in on the Hulk television show, and his guest appearances in other
titles was stunningly high. |
|
|
FWIW, according to Steve Gerber at the time there was an unofficial policy that either the Hulk or Spider-Man had to guest star in one of the first two issues of any new comic (his own Howard the Duck and Omega had this foisted on them).
Anyway, in the case of Eternals, I think "forced" is way too strong a word. It was a compromise. Kirby was asked to do something, and being a good employee he agreed to do it on his own terms. I get the sense that he could have said "no" if he'd really wanted to make an issue of it, but it wasn't his nature to be confrontive like that. I went back and found the Evanier post on usenet which covers this and reproduced it below.
Mark Evanier: Jack did not have a great love for the concept of the Marvel Universe as a collective work. He was interested in being a cooperative employee up to a point but he didn't want to collaborate with others, especially with some of the folks who wanted fervently at the time to collaborate with him. He looked at other Marvel books, including those he'd done before, and didn't especially like them, nor did he recognize the characters as they ones he'd done.
He'd have preferred not to have gone back to work at Marvel at all but, given that he was more-or-less stuck, he asked to be left alone. He wanted to write and draw stories on his own without having to work with other writers. He didn't particularly care if others considered them part of the "Marvel Universe" or not as long as it didn't force him to participate in other comics or to modify his work to match them. So if you'd asked him about whether the books were part of that continuity, his answer would have been, "I don't know and I don't care." I believe others since have decided both ways.
Regarding the appearance of the Hulk, I believe that Jack was being pressured to cross-over some other Marvel heroes. He looked at the current books and didn't like or understand them, and he didn't want to get in a position where he'd use Spider-Man and then the guys the in charge of Spider-Man would come in and start demanding he change things to suit them. So the idea of the robotic Hulk was a compromise...but I don't know if it was Kirby's or if it originated in the editorial office.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 30 July 2006 at 7:22pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:19pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I'm interested in Eternals-I might even pick it up-but I would much prefer to see Gaiman on a Doctor Strange title. I've read several times that he is a huge fan of the character so I'm not sure why this hasn't come to pass yet. There is a new Strange series in the works, after all.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Hanson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2006
Posts: 2396
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:24pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I actually think it's a better idea to have big name creators on
smaller books. The FF will always be around and always sell a certain
number of books. But, if this could actually turn the Eternals into
something popular and create a franchise, as unlikely as that is, then
it's definitely a good move for Marvel.
"If there's talent to be had, use it. Gaiman could be on FF (and again,
I have no idea whether he could write it or not) and integrate his
Eternals storyline into an FF arc. Why not?"
Because Gaiman wanted to do the Eternals and not the FF. Marvel agreed
to it, and why shouldn't they? The Eternals is a property they own that
hasn't made any money for them in decades. If a big name creator wants
to use characters in limbo to generate some type of profit from them,
then it only makes sense.
"The philosophy behind the series is puzzling. "Why make it?" "Because
it's there, Sidney!" Only it wasn't "there". I guess along with Nova
and such, and with DC digging up obscure characters to base series on,
this is more of that."
It's the same philosophy behind ANY series. Gaiman was ready to work
for Marvel, had his choice of projects, and chose the Eternals. Marvel
wants to make money and Gaiman will sell to a certain segment of their
audience.
They didn't discontinue the Avengers, the X-Men, the Fanastic Four, or
Spider-Man after the original creators left. If the Eternals had proven
commercially successful after Kirby left, I'm sure they'd be up to
issue 300 or whatever now.
To me, the philosphy behind NOT doing a new Eternals book when a hot talent wants to is what's puzzling.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Trevor Giberson
Byrne Robotics Chronology
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1888
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:36pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
For the record, Eternals #1 did very well, even outselling The Ultimates (data according to Newsarama).
Diamond's June 2006 Top 300 Comic Books
| |
Comic-book Title |
Issue |
Price |
Publisher |
Est. sales |
| 1 |
Civil War |
2 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
253,900 |
| 2 |
DCU Brave New World |
1 |
$1.00 |
DC |
140,900 |
| 3 |
New Avengers |
21 CW |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
134,300 |
| 4 |
Wonder Woman |
1 |
$2.99 |
DC |
132,600 |
| 5 |
New Avengers |
20 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
125,600 |
| 6 |
Civil War Front Line |
1 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
122,100 |
| 7 |
Flash Fastest Man Alive |
1 |
$2.99 |
DC |
120,400 |
| 8 |
Astonishing X-Men |
15 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
120,000 |
| 9 |
Wolverine Origins |
3 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
116,100 |
| 10 |
Amazing Spider-Man |
533 CW |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
113,000 |
| 11 |
52 Week |
5 |
$2.50 |
DC |
111,900 |
| 12 |
All Star Superman |
4 |
$2.99 |
DC |
111,400 |
| 13 |
52 Week |
7 |
$2.50 |
DC |
110,200 |
| 14 |
Justice |
6 |
$3.50 |
DC |
110,200 |
| 15 |
52 Week |
6 |
$2.50 |
DC |
110,000 |
| 16 |
52 Week |
8 |
$2.50 |
DC |
105,100 |
| 17 |
Eternals |
1 |
$3.99 |
Marvel |
103,200 |
| 18 |
Civil War Front Line |
2 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
102,700 |
| 19 |
Wolverine |
43 CW |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
97,800 |
| 20 |
Ultimates 2 |
11 |
$2.99 |
Marvel |
96,800 |
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Hanson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2006
Posts: 2396
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:39pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Jesus! Books in the Top 20 selling UNDER 100,000?!
What's the trend in the industry? Are these numbers better or worse than say, two years ago?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 30 July 2006 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Sad as it sounds, I think the fact that 18 of the top 20 books selling OVER 100,000 is an improvement from two years ago.
Edited to delete redundant sales chart.
Edited by Matt Linton on 30 July 2006 at 7:59pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
