Main Menu

Pat Mills

Started by Bluearmada, 31 May, 2017, 05:20:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Richard

Quotewhy would you join a 2000ad forum purely to slag off the creator of the comic?


The Monarch

With some rare exceptions (like dredd or when a creator hands over his creation to another with their blessing) There should never be another creator fucking up classic stories. I mean Never forget the nineties....never forget strontium dogs or the fleisher rogue and harlem heroes or even the millar robohunter

The big two may be a sausage factory of creators being treated like cogs in a machine but i feel 2000ad should never ever be like that

oh my god wasn't there one flesh series not done by pat that was not good?

God imagine if they gave Halo jones to Mark millar thats the darkest timeline right there.

But seriously Pats the man I still enjoy his work even today except american reaper but every creator has a dud under their name

Bolt-01

While I'm all for the original creator being the main driving force behind a strip, let's remember that 2000 AD exists because it generates revenue for Rebellion. If there comes a day when an originator steps down from a strip (as Leigh Gallagher did for the art on Defoe) then it is passed along.

Do not forget that Rebellion own these characters- not the writers or artists. We are just very lucky that Rebellion have so much respect for the creators.

There have been occasions over the years where folk who drew the first few episodes of a series are no longer available for more (after all, PJ Holden is not credited as creator for the '86'ers, despite drawing all bar the first two-or three episodes) but does that mean the series should stop?

I think not.

I'm sure that when Pat decides to hang up his word processor Rebellion will wait an appropriate time before continuing with series that contribute to the ongoing health of the comic stable.

positronic

The older I get the more I think that publishers owning the intellectual properties of writers & artists is a bad idea.

Comic publishers in Japan don't have stables full of company-owned characters, and they seem to have done all right under that system for 70 years. The creators and their estates seem to be able to manage revivals, sequels, spinoffs, and reboots of past favorite comic characters all by themselves without the major comic publishers needing to own everything.

TordelBack

#49
I think we can all agree that creator ownership is the ideal situation.

But in the specific case that concerns us, 2000AD would not exist without publisher ownership and control of the IP.  You'd have some sporadic Wagner-penned Dredd mini-series and maybe some Slaine albums and that'd  be your lot. For me, it's the lesser of two evils.

positronic

Quote from: TordelBack on 05 June, 2017, 03:45:53 PM
I think we can all agree that creator ownership is the ideal situation.

But in the specific case that concerns us, 2000AD would not exist without publisher ownership and control of the IP.  You'd have some sporadic Wagner-penned Dredd mini-series and maybe some Slaine albums and that'd  be your lot. For me, it's the lesser of two evils.

Because of its nature as a sci-fi action/adventure comic anthology, I'd argue that 2000AD is better positioned to succeed because the concept of the magazine itself IS the brand. Not even Judge Dredd has appeared in EVERY issue (although pretty close), and readers are adjusted to the idea of constantly rotating features, mixing new strips with familiar favorites.

That's a better working model than American publishers like DC or Marvel who insist on ownership-in-perpetuity as a basic condition of employment, yet don't publish any anthology titles.

In the UK you have 2000AD, but in Japan you have Shonen JUMP, and dozens of other titles. In the US for anthology titles you've got just about jack, because the mainstream readership has been trained under the publishers-own-it-all way of merchandising entertainment properties.

Still, publishers like Image, Dark Horse, IDW and Fantagraphics do okay without having to horde their creators' IPs for themselves, and they'd do even better if DC and Marvel didn't have a 40-50 year head start on accumulating their former employees' ideas.

Ideas flourish better under a system of temporary mutual alliances... or long-term ones, if that's the CHOICE of both creator and publisher.

Frank

Quote from: Bolt-01 on 05 June, 2017, 01:55:44 PM
If there comes a day when an originator steps down from a strip (as Leigh Gallagher did for the art on Defoe) then it is passed along ... (t)here have been occasions over the years where folk who drew the first few episodes of a series are no longer available

Truth flows unbidden from your every orifice, but that's not the scenario under discussion. The Mills Bomb is neither unable nor unwilling to continue penning the adventures of his creations.

Even Dredd conforms to your criteria. It's only ever been written by someone else when its creator has felt unable or unwilling to do so*.

The only writers Tharg has booted from strips of their own creation are Gerry Finley Day and Hilary Robinson** - which worked out great, both times!

So - when replacing original writers against their will has never worked out in the best interests of readers or the publisher - the question remains; why would Tharg want to treat Mills differently to any other writer? ***



* If Wagner still wanted to write 60 episodes per year, I'm sure Tharg would be delighted to let him.

** Mark Millar on Canon Fodder too, but it's difficult to see why Tharg thought it was worth bothering. His attempts to transplant new writers onto the balding pates of ageing characters has only ever resulted in work that was adequate (VCs, Ulysses Sweet) or actively awful (Rogue Trooper, Robo-hunter).

*** I'm sure The Mighty One neither wants nor plans to do so. It's a hypothetical scenario, posed by the OP of this thread.

Greg M.

Quote from: Frank on 05 June, 2017, 06:32:53 PM
Mark Millar on Canon Fodder too, but it's difficult to see why Tharg thought it was worth bothering.

Strong character design, brilliant art, big mad high concept.... but rubbish script. In many ways, Canon Fodder was the perfect series on which to perform a writer transplant. And it worked too - second series was great. (See also The Grudge-Father.)

Quote from: Frank on 05 June, 2017, 06:32:53 PM
His attempts to transplant new writers onto the balding pates of ageing characters has only ever resulted in work that was adequate (VCs, Ulysses Sweet) or actively awful (Rogue Trooper, Robo-hunter).

Ah, but what of Cinnabar by John Smith? Best Rogue Trooper-related story ever written.

Peter Hogan Robo-Hunter was superb. Dan Abnett Durham Red was very well regarded by a section of the fanbase. (I wasn't that into it myself, but some people absolutely loved the Abnett / Harrison stuff.)

Frank

Quote from: Greg M. on 05 June, 2017, 06:56:43 PM
... what of Cinnabar by John Smith? Best Rogue Trooper-related story ever written

Agreed. If only John Smith had been appointed permanent Rogue Trooper writer back in 1989, we'd be on the second or third series by now.



Greg M.

Quote from: Frank on 05 June, 2017, 07:22:52 PM
Agreed. If only John Smith had been appointed permanent Rogue Trooper writer back in 1989, we'd be on the second or third series by now.

Smith was a much more prolific writer back then. But you're probably right,  his creativity is of the kind that alights upon a concept, does something horrific and wonderful with it, and then flits off in search of the nectar of new thrills.

TordelBack

Quote from: positronic on 05 June, 2017, 04:16:04 PM
Because of its nature as a sci-fi action/adventure comic anthology, I'd argue that 2000AD is better positioned to succeed because the concept of the magazine itself IS the brand. Not even Judge Dredd has appeared in EVERY issue (although pretty close), and readers are adjusted to the idea of constantly rotating features, mixing new strips with familiar favorites.

I'd have to disagree, based on the history of this specific comic.  From the mid-90s collapse 2000AD was living on borrowed time.  While the skill and determination of the editorial teams that kept the comic afloat has to be acknowledged, I'd be convinced that without Rebellion's intervention at the turn of the century the anthology would no longer exist in a recognisable form.  And I cannot believed that Rebellion would have taken on a hodge-podge of creator-owned strips, when what makes the whole show anything more than marginally financial viable is the IP rights. 

Believe me when I say that I wish Wagner, Ezquerra, Mills, Grant, Moore & Co had the full ownership of everything they created for us, and they and their families were getting fat and lazy on the proceeds, but I'd also be sure we'd never have seen a fraction of what we got under the current (unfair) model.

Magnetica

#56
I do think one of the key strength of 2000AD is that is it an anthology.

I read everything and that means I read stuff I would not otherwise if they were published separately. A lot of strips take a while for me to like them e.g. Scarlet Traces which I really disliked initially but now like.

I wouldn't be up for tracking them all down as separate comics. e.g. I have only just got the Last American, read Watchmen years after it came out, never read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - despite all being by legendary 2000AD creators.

I'm not generally in favour of strips being written by writers other than the initial creator (apart from Dredd), but don't mind different artists.

IMO 2000AD has had very mixed results when different writers take strips on from the downright awful (e.g. Robo-Hunter, some 1990s Dredd) to the ok (Dan Abnett VCs) to the great (Al Ewing Dredd).  Apart from Dredd, the best strips written by other writers seem to actually be ones which are spin offs from the original not continuations of the original e.g Jaegir.

But I don't mind different artists at all and  think mixing the artists is generally a good thing. And indeed necessary if you want a high volume of stories (e.g. Dredd, Sinister Dexter, even Nikolai Dante - which my memory had down as only being done by Simon Fraser and John Burns, but a re-read shows that was far from the case).

Frank

Quote from: TordelBack on 05 June, 2017, 08:35:47 PM
I cannot believed that Rebellion would have taken on a hodge-podge of creator-owned strips, when what makes the whole show anything more than marginally financial viable is the IP rights. 

Believe me when I say that I wish Wagner, Ezquerra, Mills, Grant, Moore & Co had the full ownership of everything they created for us ... but I'd also be sure we'd never have seen a fraction of what we got under the current (unfair) model.

My own entirely speculative take on that is there's been a trade off between recognition of creator rights and a defacto guarantee of as much work as the founding fathers require*.

For all I know, the offer of 17 years steady employment in the context of a shrinking industry may have proven more lucrative than a deal returning full rights to the characters they created.

So that's one more reason why no, Pat Mills should not be prevented from continuing to benefit from whatever value the properties he created may hold.


*Based on nothing but my own fanboy imagination, I note that John Wagner appeared to be winding down his workload until the financial crash of 2007/8 (Origins/Tour Of Duty), which his former business partner, Alan Grant, candidly admits disrupted his own retirement plans and forced him to resume swinging a hammer in Tharg's fiction mines.

maryanddavid

QuoteThe only writers Tharg has booted from strips of their own creation are Gerry Finley Day

Was this ever actually clearly stated?

sheridan

Quote from: Frank on 05 June, 2017, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 June, 2017, 08:35:47 PM
I cannot believed that Rebellion would have taken on a hodge-podge of creator-owned strips, when what makes the whole show anything more than marginally financial viable is the IP rights. 

Believe me when I say that I wish Wagner, Ezquerra, Mills, Grant, Moore & Co had the full ownership of everything they created for us ... but I'd also be sure we'd never have seen a fraction of what we got under the current (unfair) model.

My own entirely speculative take on that is there's been a trade off between recognition of creator rights and a defacto guarantee of as much work as the founding fathers require*.

For all I know, the offer of 17 years steady employment in the context of a shrinking industry may have proven more lucrative than a deal returning full rights to the characters they created.

Considering Wagner is the same man who plonked a load of JD mechandise on the desk of one of the higher-ups at IPC, I suspect you may be right.  Rebellion can't treat their creative talent too badly if the likes of Edginton and D'Israeli were willing to go the opposite route, and take something they did own the rights to and sell them to 2000AD.