Do you think there are more or less (or the same) new superheroes being created now for the Big Two than in the past?
I think there are less, and for two possible reasons:
1. It's seen as a better business strategy to concentrate, for the most part, on building the brands they have. Superman, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, Batman, etc. Solo books launched with brand new superheroes tend to not do as well. The "real-estate" on team books are at a premium -- while you can have one or two new characters, most have to be established. And "third tier" new characters created specifically to round out superhero teams have a very spotty success rate (Vibe, Gilgamesh, or Manitou Raven, anyone? Anyone?).
2. Many comic creators these days are hesitant (loathe?) to "give away" their best ideas if they are not going to have a healthy rights share in them. This is not always the case -- but it is indeed some of the case. An exception to this "rule" would be someone like Dan Slott, who is like a new character factory.
In a broader sense, the playing field for characters might be so swollen as it is (just look at the old Who's Whos and Marvel Universe Handbooks to catch a glimpse of some of it), that there is no pressing need to create superheroes in the frequency of the 1960s or 1980s/90s. Also, there are tons of new characters debuting -- from the other publishers, and from self-publishing.
Personally, while it is far too early in my career to really speculate, I'm 50/50 on the creating new characters thing. I'm fine with creating new characters, and I'm fine with "donating" (though I'm really being paid) some of my "pet" ideas to books and projects where I do not control 100% of the rights. I think it's good to give something back, and to contribute new and viable things back into the pool of ideas that gave me so much pleasure as a young person.
On the other hand, I have several elaborate ideas and projects that I'd want to have more control over. For example, I have a long narrative and whole world built in my vampire novel, with hundreds of new characters. I've worked a long time on building that elaborate world and writing that book, and it is also intensely personal to me. This may not be a property that would be ideal to sell a portion or all of my rights to. This may be something I would want to put out myself. But the caveat is, by putting it out all myself I lack the exposure and market penetration that a major publisher would give me. I mean, through my own self-promotion efforts I might get a lot done, but it just doesn't compare.
I don't think that in terms of expanding the Marvel & DC Universes, full-creator's rights is an ideal set-up. Just having characters in the same book with different rights tiers can be problematic, especially for reprints and adaptations in other media. I've seen the complications first-hand that such arrangements bring.
By the same token, I understand the need of comic creators to own their own characters and control their destinies. I don't think there is an easy or ideal solution, and I think all those solutions will involve some degree of compromise one way or another. But while I think it is OK for the major comic publishers to not produce so many new characters as they did in the past, it's always good to invest in tomorrow's "stars." Remember, characters like Wolverine & Lobo were flukes. And they might already be in those new comics, on the stands right now, waiting to capture the imagination of a new generation...
What superheroes and other characters created in the last couple of years from DC and Marvel do you think are tomorrow's stars?
Good points. Considering that there are already so many superheroes in the Big Two, what is the point in expanding further?
ReplyDeleteI question the wisdom of introducing the Archie heroes and the Milestone characters to the DCU at this time, when so many other books really need some support. My feeling is that DC should concentrate on making books like Titans, Outsiders, and Green Arrow/Black Canary must-reads before convoluting their universe even further.
So what do you see as the most significant new characters created by the big 2 in the last... two decades? Who created them? Why were they of import?
ReplyDeleteI'm voting for the "swollen" theory. There are no shortages of properties that have been forgotten or abandoned, & why create, I don't know, some schmoe to use in your comic when you can make the Blue Beetle surge up in popularity (& then kill him)?
ReplyDeleteIsn't some of this also related to the fact that a most comic books are written by fans, for fans? I'm not saying comic books are necessarily fan fiction, just that the authors must enjoy playing in someone else's sandbox so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI catch a lot of grief for my answer to that question: Michael "Mr. Terrific" Holt.
ReplyDeleteI've been told to my face by some pretty big name comic guys from both houses that he just isn't "interesting" or "conflicted" enough to drive his own mini-series, let alone his own book.
I just can't accept that. I honestly believe that there are no bad characters, only bad exposure.
How does anyone know if Terrific's got the chops to headline his own book if he's only featured on one or two pages of "Justice Society of America" a month? Or only seen pushing paper in "Checkmate"?
The guy's got all the traits of a great hero. He's got integrity, he's got intelligence, he's got an openended origin that allows him to be tied to just about any hero or villain in DC (for no more than the character's been explored he could've done one of his many undergrad or post-grad studies with Will Magnus), and he's got the goods to physically hold his own in the DCU.
When I think of Terrific I see Jason Bourne with a supergenius IQ and robotic drones that each pack more power than a Batcave.
And all of that is independent of his fast becoming the preeminent black hero in DC. I've never been one to play the race card but after Barack Obama's ascension to the highest office in the United States of America maybe, just maybe, it's time for a character every bit as capable as civic-minded as Superman, every bit as badass as Batman, and every bit as pragmatic as Wonder Woman to get his time to shine.
I'd agree on less, but moreso for the fact that there IS a character glut and not that much imagination left out there. Let's face it; a lot of the cooler abilities have been taken and it's hard to invent new twists on them while not being called a rip off of a more established character.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 60s (using Marvel as an example as I know them best) Stan Lee was creating stuff from scratch so he and whatever artist was on that project had to churn out an entire universe between several titles. Once there was a decent stable of villains and heroes, they began to re-use them over and over creating less and less as the decades progressed. I look at most of the new characters created today, and outside of Slott's AI the majority of them are legacy characters (Blue Beetle) or alternate versions of established ones (Lady Bullseye).
I do agree the rights issue is another major concern. A lot of creators have outright said that, which is why they produce their own stuff along with their hired work. I dunno how I'd feel about that issue. As you said, in some cases it has its benefits and others not, which is pretty much how it goes for everything. There is no perfect scenario and compromise is almost always present. I think, ultimately, I'd offer up my lesser creations (lesser being the ones that are still good, but that I like less than others) to companies, get myself a little notoriety, and then bring out my favorites by myself. Think that'd be the ultimate sitch right there.
Yep. Definitely fewer newbies, and the ones that are out there are pretty, well, unmemorable.
ReplyDeleteIs that a word? Because if not, I just made it up.
I have that DC character pic on a jigsaw puzzle.
ReplyDeleteGreat points! Look at Booster Gold. Any kid starting off of JLU cartoon to the new series, assumes he's just a time-traveling showboat...wait...bad example. Uh...Oh, I have one. Cyclone! Is it me or did everyone seem to latch on to her. I did. Not to many aeropaths, but also, it's her impossible-not-to-like persona.
ReplyDeleteOn another point: I agree that it does seem less so for the character count. So many characters seem to just be fading away or getting the Didio Death-Touch (Copyrighted! Heh.). Everyone is in prison in Marvel, and DC...ya.
I think there is enough characters to play with. I mean, to me "new" characters, in some ways, is lazy writing. I say "new" because alotta the creations will be someone taking up someone's mantle but the original will come back if she/he isn't already still alive. Or, they'll just basically be a copy...and ya. But like someone said, no such thing as a bad character, only writers.
Also, Mr. Terrific not interesting?! I've heard that on message boards too, Four-Colored Commando, and I'm like, are we reading the same character? I know it's an opinion, but the character's well rounded and has original aspects with his tech. I really like Holt. His mini could give a little more indepth on his wife and how he chose to do what he does. He's still, kind of, missing a back story. At least dealing with humanization...and that makes a character. (If they do that...they might kill him though...poor Ted and Ralph...sigh.)
One thing the Big Two has attempted to do is to create new characters taking up the mantles of pre-existing heroic mantles. Michael Holt, Kate Spencer and Jamie Reyes might be the best examples of this trend. I'm especially a fan of Jaime because I feel he gives DC its' first real "answer" to Peter Parker in years -- smart teenager, strong supporting cast/family, strong moral center, but still fun to read and root for. And yet you're always gonna have that rapidly aging fanbase crying in its' milk about wanting Ted Kord back.
ReplyDeleteI like Sean McKeever's "Gravity". The kid had a short mini-series, and was featured in Beyond, Kirkman's MTU, and Fantastic Four. I think that Greg Willis deserves his own independent, on-going series, as he's one of the few new characters that seems to blend the old with the new.
ReplyDeletethere is no glut. there are many bad characters that have been created that have died merciful deaths. anyone remember nomad, marvel's 1990 rookie of the year?
ReplyDeletethere are far less being introduced today, and i think this is a problem as it leads to re-imagining and forcing new levels of winking continuity on old characters. and this is totally a rights issue. why give away good characters if you are not going to benefit from their creation?
of course not all new characters are going to be successful. but this should not preclude the creation of them.
as for the best new character in the past few years. easy: kate spenser. how she never took off is beyond me. i hope dc uses her well after her book is gone though.
Let's say you have the idea for a new superhero to be introduced in, say, Cloak and Dagger. There's a really interesting backstory to this character, and really cool abilities, or even visual hooks.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing running through your mind, in my opinion, shouldn't be ownership, or giving something up (as a fan and as a comic pro I don't like the idea of someone not giving their all - literally - to the project at hand, as idealistic as that sounds. My personal idea as someone who hasn't really established a foothold in comicdom is that giving a 100% NOW might be the difference in whether or not I'm even around in a few years' time. If you're established, then yeah, maybe you can pick and choose.)
The first thing to consider is, is it even appropriate for the established universe. Second, and here's something that so many people forget, is whether or not that character is even viable OUTSIDE the Marvel or DC universe. Take the Marvel character X-23, which, whether or not you appreciate the creative merits to her, clearly has no place outside the Marvel U.
Jessica Jones is a character that people argue could clearly have been an independent character, but Marvel continuity is critical in every single one of the stories that make her so likeable.
People have also claimed that Ennis' MAX Punisher run was so unlike the established Punisher with the skull emblazoned-shirt that it could have been an independent character. Ridiculous. We love the book because it's ultimately still Frank Castle.
Even Wolverine, as popular as he is now, owes a great deal to Marvel editorial for taking him out of Alpha Flight and putting him on the less-than-popular-at-the-time superhero team called the X-Men.
If you have a character that would be perfect for Cloak and Dagger or X-Force or whatever, I say just put them in there. If it would be equally perfect for the Marvel or DC book, AND your own creator-owned book, then sure, go with the creator owned. But I have almost never seen a successful character, corporate-owned or creator-owned, that fits both (the only characters I can think of off the top of my head are the characters of NYX and Runaways, and even they have to be established in a world where superheroes and mutants already exist.) You're usually shoehorning one way or the other.
And I completely agree with Randyhate. Using the idea that there are so many existing characters or that the success rate is so low as reasons not to create new ones is just defeatist mentality.
Here's me completely ignoring your last question.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, here's me going off on a tangent I've been nursing since I was like 10.
There are too many effing characters in the comics.
This is probably just me being anal, but if all the people in the comic book universe really existed it would be just Kingdom Come level chaos all the time because there would be just way too much power on Earth.
I've long nursed this dream of starting a comic book company by getting a bunch of really clever people in a room, coming up with a big raft of characters (you know, like, enough for ONE of those old Marvel Universe Handbook trades) and then sticking to that group and only that group of superpowereds for the foreseeable.
I think the best thing about comics is the way new creators layer new meaning onto other creators' ideas. In fact, if one thing about the creators' rights movement bothers me, it's the way it undermines that. Comics are just about the only medium in which characters get continually refined by other creators (you can sort of say a similar thing happens in music with melodies and tunes, but it's harder to see).
My favorite stories are always the ones that dig back in the archives and update and change and expand and add flesh. So, I don't much think we need new characters. In fact, I sort of loved Scourge of the Underworld just because he cleared out so much garbage.
You know what I love about comics? I love the way that a random ass B-list villain like Constrictor has changed so much over time. The way he kind started off as a hitman but then the sort of got some more flesh and now he's pretty much gone straight only he doesn't really do anything much anymore.
Except play poker with The Thing. Which is totally badass.
Stuff like that makes me love comics. So, I guess I'm saying that I hope you're right. I hope we aren't adding new characters. I hope we also do less complete revisions of old characters (the new White Tiger is much less interesting than what could have been done by bringing back the old Tiger Crew, for example).
Actually, come to think of it, two characters that might have done well as independent creator-owned characters, given their powers and origins, are Cloak and Dagger.
ReplyDeleteAmadeus Cho. I thought he was going to get his own solo book after winning that poll. Sadly, Marvel never gave him that chance. I absolutely love his super brain fueled by food power. He would've done well as a creator owned character too.
ReplyDeleteThere are not less superheroes being created.
ReplyDeleteThere are fewer superheroes being created.
The question then becomes, "fewer than what?"
I see what you're saying, Bradydale. That could be a big reason why "Kirkman"-verse is, at least partly, so successful. 3 titles and a reasonable amount of characters = easy accessibility.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Mike Choi, Jessica Drew, Love 'er! It's just that no one appreciates when she does have a book. What...maybe the Front Lines? But, ya. Nobody read Alias or Pulse. This happened to Gotham Central. Outside the box, thus no one read, even though it was fresh, well-written, and, the best part, fun.
Not that things are at a 1960's Kirby style new character-o-rama, hasn't marvel made a sincere effort to try and spotlight some of the new characters that have been put in the sandbox in recent years? Specifically Bendis on the Avengers brought The Sentry fully into the Marvel Universe, along with Echo, The Hood, Marvel Boy, Ares(Ares might have been around but Oeming essentially created this version cold), Maria Hill, Agent Brand, the Young Avengers...
ReplyDeleteNow could these characters carry their own successful solo series? Probably not. But how many established characters can carry their own series?
I like to look at characters created in the last ten years, because I think that if you last longer than five years and still matter to anybody, mission accomplished; your character has some kind of appeal. There are, of course, exceptions. Like Kid Devil, who was conceived of twenty years ago, but I don't think has actually mattered to anybody since Titans.
ReplyDeleteIt's sort of depressing. I've been flipping through DK's DC and Marvel encyclopedias and it's in part like looking at a record of the dead, forgotten, and not really that interesting to begin with. 'Alas, Indigo, we hardly knew ye.'
I think that Hot Minute of the Runaways and the Young Avengers mattering to anybody has long since passed; or, at least, they've certainly dropped off my pop culture radar. It helps that the Young Avengers ceased to exist and the Runaways ceased not to kind of suck. The Sentry had wings for a second but I'm pretty sure nobody cares anymore.
Oh, yeah. Impulse had plenty of kids' lunchboxes-potential. Oh, wait. Then his character was folded into the Flash, and when it was discovered that that was terrible, he was savagely murdered. Ho ho! Touche, DC. Touche.
The other side of the coin: Should characters be killed off? One could argue that if handled correctly, an obscure Spider-Man villain could be made interesting.
ReplyDeleteNeil Gaiman states that it's okay to tell an old story in a new way. Superman and Icon are very similar. (And Sandman was not his first pitch. It was the last of a long list, and Karen Berger suggested he not use the Simon-Kirby Sandman, but create something new.)
As for showcasing new or recycled characters, both DC and Marvel should create mini-series of 6-8 issues (long enough for a trade collection) to gauge reader reaction. It's even possible for a publisher to take an in-progress mini-series and make it open-ended.
Team books are a good place to use minor characters. Like an ensemble cast, they can come and go as the story requires. Maybe they start a Midwest chapter. Maybe they host a TV show.
HEY! That's an obscure character given new meaning... Speedball/Penance.
And if you want to read an interesting new title, try Johnny DC's "Family Dynamic". It's set up outside the DC multiverse.
Yes, and No. The Avengers Initiative in Marvel made a story-driven way for new characters to constantly be created, much like the X-men/mutants did before that. If one reads the Initiative book proper, you can see many new ones. The Spider-man revamp also made way for newer villains to be created, thus allowing each series to reinvigorate themselves.
ReplyDeleteAre they making them in the frequency of Stan and Jack back in the day? Probably not. But back then, as is happening in more indie comics now, the strategy was to throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
These days there's much more guidance. Events lead to more characters, which are brought into the fold in a way that the audience can consume better. The marketing of new, potential characters become stronger if they're shepherded in.
Remember when they used to do mini-series all the time? That was great.
ReplyDeleteOh Kittypryde & Wolverine... we shall never see your like again.
I think it's just a matter of not needing to create as many new characters. The big two have got such big stables that you can almot always find someone suited to fill whatever niche you have in your story. I prefer the idea of using pre-established characters whenever you can because it makes the fictional world seem more coherent, gives those characters more depth, streamlines the story by avoiding the need for origin issues to explain who they are, and reduces confusion by sticking to (relatively) familiar faces
ReplyDelete