Quesada says the whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot, which is true. Thing is, it was his side that made a big deal about what they thought were DC's big indiscretions.
And he also confirms August payment for e-royalties.
Unfortunately I already own Gyakushu! and Earthlight, the only two things I'd actually want to read. But it's not a bad start.
I keep hoping Gyakushu! gets released in a larger format. Hipp's art is gorgeous, and reading the stuff on his blogger club thing, with great big images was an amazing thing.
Does anyone know what happened to that next volume the Amazing Joy Buzzards that was supposed to come out in 2008? Is this another reason I should be mad at Mark Andrew Smith?
DouglasDanger on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Jeffery Klaehn: How would you characterize your vision of Batman?
Chuck Dixon: I leant more toward the detective side. The more analytical, less psychotic Batman.
His favorite Superheroes are the FF, which I would have never guessed. He also reemphasizes DC being very good about royalties and Marvel less so, and The 'Nam #66 is what he considers his best comic he produced (was that series any good?)
I think I asked this already on the Superman thread but has DC said whether they'll release Superman digitally the same day as the regular release?
They have not, and considering that they only put the JMS story up as a free preview as part of a massive promotional blitz for him taking over, I'd say it's unlikely but not impossible.
Nothing stands out compared to other alternate Superman stories, and the Captain Marvel angle is a bit obvious (kid with physical problems can become great hero).
TexiKen on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
That's unfortunate, but not too surprising. That website was a pain in the ass to navigate, as were the comics themselves. DC tried to re-invent the webcomic model, and it just straight up didn't work.
That said, it's a bummer for a bunch of comic creators to suddenly lose their income, as well as the properties they created for DC. Hopefully some of them will find a way to carry their Zuda audiences to their next projects.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
I liked that Bayou comic, but everything else, not so much.
I don't remember all the legal things about the rights to the comics, but DC seems to be pretty good about giving properties back to creators in things like this (I'm thinking of The Boys, for instance).
TexiKen on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
The guy seems to be love him or hate him due to the way he inked, but my God is this the way to burn bridges. And surprise surprise, editors stab you in the back.
Here's the transcribed letter below
Marvel Editors...you are the droppings of the creative world. You were destined to float in the cesspool till urine logged and finally sink to the bottom with the rest of the shit but along came Jim Shooter who rolled up his sleeves and rescued you.
He gave you a title, respectability, power and even a credit card that you used and abused. He made you the highest payed Editors in the history of the business. He protected you against all that would tamper with your rights, your power and your pocketbook.
He backed you against all Prima Donna free lancers no matter how big...his pockets were always open to you. No cry of help was too small for him to turn his back on.
As heard in the "Brass" section of the company..."He never asked for anything for himself...always for his men."
The roof over your head, the clothes on your back, the car you drive and the trinkets you buy for your blind wives and girlfriends you owe to the Pittsburgh kid.
For all he did for you...you repayed him by attacking him like a pack of yellow, prickless faggots. Ripping away his flesh from his body and laughing and pounding your chest like conquering ghouls and long after his bones were dry you continued to pour salt on them to squeeze every ounce of pain out of him.
Not the slightest whimper or cry or tear came out of this man. With you still biting at his ankles, he put on his coat and walked away...Displaying more class and poise in defeat than all of you did in victory...Jesus had one Judas...Jim had many, those that speared him and worse, those that watched...
I stuck by him and for that you've nailed me on the same cross...I thank you for that...It's an honor to be crucified with Jim Shooter...a man who none of you will ever be.
Wow that's a pretty serious man crush he had going there.
Virral on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
I see it as being no different than Tom Brevoort and Joe Quesada's bromance.
Although I have read that Shooter, for being an absolute asshole, did do everything he could to better the salaries and lives of the creators at Marvel. He's like the japanese super at your apartment who makes you wax his cars and paint his house and you think he's just making you do work he doesn't want to do himself but you realize he was just trying to make you stronger so you can go fight the DCobra Kais.
From what I've read, Shooter was a bully and a prick, and I find Colletta's rage against "Prima Donna freelancers" pretty funny, as they presumably demanded things like having their art returned to them, or being credited on their creations.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Those were things Shooter worked on though at the end of his tenure at Marvel.
While I don't think it ultimately happened under his watch, he did start one of the major pushes for creators retaining the art (I think it was Liefield who helped make it happen though, with 3 pages going to the penciller and one page to the inker)
I'm not denying Shooter was a jerk, but history is written by the living/victors and since he burned a lot of bridges himself at Marvel I doubt those still there spoke kindly of him. Of course I'm also looking at it after seeing the creators of today like EVS and David Finch take forever to do work in much better conditions but act like they're in the coal mines.
Artists were getting their art back as early as the late 70s - the argument was that Marvel and DC were sitting on art from prior to that and wouldn't return it (in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, art was routinely used for chip board and coasters and who knows what else).
jkylefulton on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Then I might not be remembering something correctly, because that 3 pages to the artist and 1 to the inker was, I thought, something relatively new to comics artists in the 80's. I'm trying to remember things from Wizard articles back in the 90's, and it's like Never Ending Story II where the sorceress is making me forget my memories.
I mainly remember because Byrne always used to complain on his website that he sold every page of his original X-Men stuff for like $15-20 per page, even though guys like Simonson and Chaykin and Miller were telling him to hold onto it.
Of course, now those pages routinely show up for thousands and thousands of dollars each.
There's a link to an interview between Coletta and an un-named guy which is very interesting. Industry conflcit is always fun to read about. Shooter vs the Editors, I wonder how much of that is true, with the whole burning an effigy thing.
I don't remember all the legal things about the rights to the comics, but DC seems to be pretty good about giving properties back to creators in things like this (I'm thinking of The Boys, for instance).
Writer and Artist = 5% of net receipts per sale
Inker = 3%
Creator-owned work = 3%
colorists and letterers = nothing (apparently Marvel will offer colorists royalties in their yet unreleased information)
I wouldn't give colorists or letterers a royalty, to be honest, just provide higher upfront pay. They aren't as integral to the story like the big three are.
TexiKen on
0
Options
spookymuffin( ° ʖ ° )Puyallup WA Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Colorists are pretty valuable, IMHO. You can have shitty pencils and inks, but once the color hits the page, it'll pop out. Check out Ms. Marvel #50 for how NOT to color a book. I don't see why letterers are still used, though. It doesn't seem that hard to draw some word bubbles and type things up in Comic Sans.
spookymuffin on
PSN: MegaSpooky // 3DS: 3797-6276-7138 Wii U NNID: MegaSpooky
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
I think colorists these days often do too much. Richard Isanove being the biggest example of this. It's sometimes an over-saturation of Photoshop.
There are some great colorists out there (Moose Baumann, Laura Martin, Sandra Oback and Christina Strain). But they aren't make it or break it in regards to buying the book.
Erik Larsen recently defended the fact that colorists don't receive royalties. Personally, I think it's bullshit. There are some pencillers whose work would look downright awful without the assistance of a skilled colorist. Can anyone honestly tell me that Steve McNiven's work on Nemesis looks as good as his Old Man Logan or Civil War?
Or think about artists like Sam Basri, Seth Fisher, or Geoff Darrow, who use virtually no spotted blacks, and little variation in line-weight. Their stuff would look terribly flat and convoluted without a good colorist providing depth and form. Ditto for the UDON house style of art. Without color, that stuff would look nowhere near as good. Every time there's a cool color hold, an energy effect, or an interesting texture in a comic, that's usually the colorist, enhancing the work.
Letterers I could go either way on. I think the job of a letterer is more to stay out of the way, and go unnoticed. But every now and then I see something like Asterios Polyp or Cerberus, that reminds me how much a letterer can really contribute to a comic.
Didn't Wizard get a lot of shit in the past for something involving HeroesCon?
wirehead26 on
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
I think it was Wizard was going to have one of their bigger conventions (not in Atlanta) on the same weekend one year, but a lot of creators signed up with HeroesCon to make sure it wasn't economically viable for Wizard to try and off HeroesCon.
There was something I think Bleeding Cool ran about Marvel not showing up at any new Wizard Conventions, which is really bad for Wizard because they were BFFs for so long.
Actually I looked it up and it was a 2006 Atlanta convention that Wizard had planned the exact same weekend as HeroesCon.
I'm friends with the guy who's helping Wizard run the show and so far he's been impressed with their change in attitude. He said they pretty much purged the company of all the negative elements after the HeroesCon debacle.
wirehead26 on
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
edited July 2010
every book should be colored by Dave Stewart
Garlic Bread on
0
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
That's a good point, and I would even consider inkers to be the same, but in some cases inkers actually are integral to the story, such as having to work from only breakdowns when artists are behind schedule
TexiKen, the correct term is tracer. But in all seriousness, an inker can make or break a story. Same with colourists. Look at the pencil images of Thanos Imperative #2 taht were included at the end of issue 1. They look absolutely gorgeous and youd never have imagined it was the same artist, but the colouring and inking actually hurt his pencils. With someone like Ivan Reis, the colouring and special effects really make his rather dull and generic (not a bad thing and I like his work, just he's an "Image" artist through and through) pencils stand out far more than say how dull the colouring on recent Green Lantern Corps issues make that look.
Her'es McNiven's rough art. The inking and colouring really make his work, though it's still great without them.
However, whether they deserve royalties or not is up to debate. They do add to the product, but didn't technically create anything nor were essential to the creative process. It's like giving the printers, editors and other technical aspects of the book's creation royalties. Yeah, it's better because of them or just plain made due to their involvement, but did they really create anything, in the most basic of definitions, to be deserving of royalties? Maybe a flat fee up front for digital, but not long term royalties or anything excessive for inkers and colourists.
Posts
Quesada says the whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot, which is true. Thing is, it was his side that made a big deal about what they thought were DC's big indiscretions.
And he also confirms August payment for e-royalties.
Unfortunately I already own Gyakushu! and Earthlight, the only two things I'd actually want to read. But it's not a bad start.
Tumblr Twitter
I keep hoping Gyakushu! gets released in a larger format. Hipp's art is gorgeous, and reading the stuff on his blogger club thing, with great big images was an amazing thing.
Does anyone know what happened to that next volume the Amazing Joy Buzzards that was supposed to come out in 2008? Is this another reason I should be mad at Mark Andrew Smith?
His favorite Superheroes are the FF, which I would have never guessed. He also reemphasizes DC being very good about royalties and Marvel less so, and The 'Nam #66 is what he considers his best comic he produced (was that series any good?)
They have not, and considering that they only put the JMS story up as a free preview as part of a massive promotional blitz for him taking over, I'd say it's unlikely but not impossible.
This is weird, but it seems neat.
Nothing stands out compared to other alternate Superman stories, and the Captain Marvel angle is a bit obvious (kid with physical problems can become great hero).
That said, it's a bummer for a bunch of comic creators to suddenly lose their income, as well as the properties they created for DC. Hopefully some of them will find a way to carry their Zuda audiences to their next projects.
Tumblr Twitter
I don't remember all the legal things about the rights to the comics, but DC seems to be pretty good about giving properties back to creators in things like this (I'm thinking of The Boys, for instance).
The guy seems to be love him or hate him due to the way he inked, but my God is this the way to burn bridges. And surprise surprise, editors stab you in the back.
Here's the transcribed letter below
Although I have read that Shooter, for being an absolute asshole, did do everything he could to better the salaries and lives of the creators at Marvel. He's like the japanese super at your apartment who makes you wax his cars and paint his house and you think he's just making you do work he doesn't want to do himself but you realize he was just trying to make you stronger so you can go fight the DCobra Kais.
Tumblr Twitter
While I don't think it ultimately happened under his watch, he did start one of the major pushes for creators retaining the art (I think it was Liefield who helped make it happen though, with 3 pages going to the penciller and one page to the inker)
I'm not denying Shooter was a jerk, but history is written by the living/victors and since he burned a lot of bridges himself at Marvel I doubt those still there spoke kindly of him. Of course I'm also looking at it after seeing the creators of today like EVS and David Finch take forever to do work in much better conditions but act like they're in the coal mines.
Of course, now those pages routinely show up for thousands and thousands of dollars each.
That's really cool of DC. Good for them, and the creators that are getting their properties returned to them.
Tumblr Twitter
It's kind of weird how they're doing it. They owe Diamond some big cash still, so their other distributor better keep their eyes open.
Wii U NNID: MegaSpooky
Here is the information regarding DC's online royalties
Writer and Artist = 5% of net receipts per sale
Inker = 3%
Creator-owned work = 3%
colorists and letterers = nothing (apparently Marvel will offer colorists royalties in their yet unreleased information)
I wouldn't give colorists or letterers a royalty, to be honest, just provide higher upfront pay. They aren't as integral to the story like the big three are.
Wii U NNID: MegaSpooky
There are some great colorists out there (Moose Baumann, Laura Martin, Sandra Oback and Christina Strain). But they aren't make it or break it in regards to buying the book.
Or think about artists like Sam Basri, Seth Fisher, or Geoff Darrow, who use virtually no spotted blacks, and little variation in line-weight. Their stuff would look terribly flat and convoluted without a good colorist providing depth and form. Ditto for the UDON house style of art. Without color, that stuff would look nowhere near as good. Every time there's a cool color hold, an energy effect, or an interesting texture in a comic, that's usually the colorist, enhancing the work.
Letterers I could go either way on. I think the job of a letterer is more to stay out of the way, and go unnoticed. But every now and then I see something like Asterios Polyp or Cerberus, that reminds me how much a letterer can really contribute to a comic.
Tumblr Twitter
Didn't Wizard get a lot of shit in the past for something involving HeroesCon?
There was something I think Bleeding Cool ran about Marvel not showing up at any new Wizard Conventions, which is really bad for Wizard because they were BFFs for so long.
I'm friends with the guy who's helping Wizard run the show and so far he's been impressed with their change in attitude. He said they pretty much purged the company of all the negative elements after the HeroesCon debacle.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Her'es McNiven's rough art. The inking and colouring really make his work, though it's still great without them.
However, whether they deserve royalties or not is up to debate. They do add to the product, but didn't technically create anything nor were essential to the creative process. It's like giving the printers, editors and other technical aspects of the book's creation royalties. Yeah, it's better because of them or just plain made due to their involvement, but did they really create anything, in the most basic of definitions, to be deserving of royalties? Maybe a flat fee up front for digital, but not long term royalties or anything excessive for inkers and colourists.
http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/07/08/dc-comics-and-capstone-team-up-on-%e2%80%98dc-super-pets%e2%80%99/