Main Menu

Pat Mills

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sheridan

Quote from: sheridan on 05 June, 2017, 11:34:19 PM
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.

(Scarlet Traces, for those who don't read the articles).

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: Frank on 05 June, 2017, 07:22:52 PM
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.

Thirded.  He also did a Friday text story which was excellent; a shining star in an an otherwise piss-awful Fleisher-filled Rogue annual.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

Proudhuff

You cads! With all your talk of comics and creators, you've driven the sockpuppet away!
DDT did a job on me

Steven Denton

Owning all or part of an IP is an asset for a publisher were as creator owned is not. Publishing 100% creator owned properties is a very different business model as even the biggest hit doesn't add any actual value to your company's value, but with no upfront money for content and the onus for advertising resting on the creators, the overheads/risks are reduced. I can't imagine it would be that easy to work out a profit share on an anthology. 

I think  the risk/reward for both the company and the creator means there will always be company owned properties.

positronic

Quote from: TordelBack on 05 June, 2017, 08:35:47 PM
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.

But I'd be forced to ask whose fault IS it that there was a mid-1990s collapse? Some combination of publisher's, editor's, and writer/artist choices is what I'd venture, but is any of the fault attributable to the original creators of the more recognizable, long-running characters making bad choices for those characters?

What I'm suggesting here is that I think the original creators, not the publishers or editors of 2000AD, make better custodians of the characters they created, in terms of creative decision-making. Where 2000AD has been successful in creative terms, I think it's when editors wisely let the creators hold the reigns and guide the characters they created. It's not that I think that comic creators are infallible and incapable of bad decisions, just that they may be somewhat less so than an editor or publisher. Nor, obviously, are all characters created equal, or all creators equally creative.

positronic

Quote from: Magnetica on 05 June, 2017, 08:41:37 PM
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).

Creator-owned doesn't have to mean that the original creators are the only ones who will ever work on a character, or spinoffs of the concept. Mike Mignola has an entire universe of characters he created and various spinoff series (Hellboy, B.P.R.D., et. al.). He doesn't personally write and draw every comic or every character, but he oversees and approves the storylines and the choices of the writers and artists involved.

Magnetica

Right ok...so that sounds like he is doing the job an editor would then(?)

I, Cosh

Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Right ok...so that sounds like he is doing the job an editor would then(?)
And the writers and artists of the individual comics would presumably be on a work for hire basis?
We never really die.

positronic

Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Right ok...so that sounds like he is doing the job an editor would then(?)

Yes, that's correct. But I would tend to trust the editorial decisions made by the creators about their own characters, since they arguably have a vision of their own conceptions that no one else has. It's no different than it works with Japanese comic anthology magazines, where the magazine editors will certainly offer their suggestions and ideas, along with informing the creator(s) about reader feedback on the stories. Ultimately though, it's the creators' decision whether to do something or not. Whether to write/draw it themselves, collaborate with other creators, set up a spinoff character series, or merely supervise a creative team on storylines that they personally approve.

You could say that makes the creators like sub-editors of their own little franchises under the larger umbrella of (in this case) the 2000AD editor. But it also frees the actual magazine editor up to concentrate his energies on making decisions about other things, things that the creators of one particular strip have nothing to do with. I don't wish to devalue the contributions made by the editors of 2000AD, but they might not always have been the best judge of what to do with each and every character or strip in the magazine. In effect, it puts the proven-popular characters into cruise-control mode for the editor, while the editor can then concentrate on choosing the best crop of new talent and new strips for the magazine.

When Jack Kirby made his move from Marvel Comics to DC in 1970, that's pretty much how he envisioned himself, as the creator of a small group of titles, that as they were established and expanded, would eventually be turned over to trusted writers and artists to continue under his supervision, while Kirby got on with creating new characters and titles. In fact it didn't turn out that way, and the details of why might involve a long discussion not pertinent here, but Kirby was forward-thinking and ahead of his time in a lot of ways. Then again, no one can know ahead of time whether something they create is going to become popular or not.

Magnetica

Quote from: positronic on 08 June, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Right ok...so that sounds like he is doing the job an editor would then(?)
Yes, that's correct. But I would tend to trust the editorial decisions made by the creators about their own characters, since they arguably have a vision of their own conceptions that no one else has.

Ok glad you said that, because - coming back to the original subject of this thread - that is petty much exactly how Pat Mills operated as the original editor of 2000AD ( as described in ThrillPower Overload and The Mighty One IIRC) at least with respect to strips he came up with, then contracted out to other writers and then edited hugely e.g Invasion, Flesh and Harlem Heroes. I'm guessing he had big editoral input on Dredd and Dan Dare too, but didn't create them.

sheridan

Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 02:37:32 PM
Ok glad you said that, because - coming back to the original subject of this thread - that is petty much exactly how Pat Mills operated as the original editor of 2000AD ( as described in ThrillPower Overload and The Mighty One IIRC) at least with respect to strips he came up with, then contracted out to other writers and then edited hugely e.g Invasion, Flesh and Harlem Heroes. I'm guessing he had big editoral input on Dredd and Dan Dare too, but didn't create them.

The descriptions I've read are more like, 'created by people other than Pat Mills, though perhaps given a brief by him, then re-written mercilessly by Pat before publication'.

positronic

Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 02:37:32 PM
Quote from: positronic on 08 June, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 01:31:13 PM
Right ok...so that sounds like he is doing the job an editor would then(?)
Yes, that's correct. But I would tend to trust the editorial decisions made by the creators about their own characters, since they arguably have a vision of their own conceptions that no one else has.

Ok glad you said that, because - coming back to the original subject of this thread - that is petty much exactly how Pat Mills operated as the original editor of 2000AD ( as described in ThrillPower Overload and The Mighty One IIRC) at least with respect to strips he came up with, then contracted out to other writers and then edited hugely e.g Invasion, Flesh and Harlem Heroes. I'm guessing he had big editoral input on Dredd and Dan Dare too, but didn't create them.

I guess we can only speculate as to how the magazine might have fared had Pat Mills been given the creator-ownership he craved, and stayed on as editor-creator with the magazine past its launching, rather than stepping down and turning editorship over to Kelvin Gosnell. And I mean that as no slight to Kelvin Gosnell, who Pat himself admits is never given enough credit for his contributions.

I think people are naturally inclined to always view the situation as one of creator-ownership VERSUS publishers, as if the latter cannot possibly benefit from publishing creator-owned characters. I don't think that's true.

TordelBack

#72
It's worth remembering that Wagner had been an editor too, and that both he and Mills have several creator-owned characters and strips, and that Gosnell, MacManus, Burton, Tomlinson, McKenzie, Bishop, Diggle and Smith have all written, rewritten and in most cases created strips.  It's a complicated milieu and a very specific history that gives us 2000AD. I doubt an alternate past (or present) where everything was creator-controlled would have resulted in anything we recognise as the prog-as-she-is-written.

Would any publisher in 1977 have taken a punt on financing, distributing and supporting 100,000 copies of a Mills-owned stable? Would the comic resemble itself taken out of the (in retrospect) bizarre internal world and pressures of Fleetway and successors?

Magnetica

Absolutely. It might not be the "fairest" model in some people's view but it has given us a great comic for 40 years.

Personally I would rather see given strips continue to appear in 2000AD than go off somewhere else when the creator-owner chooses. If that were to happen I probably wouldn't buy the other publications strips would appear in.


Magnetica

Sorry for the double post.

One other example: Summer Magic + disputed ownership rights = no more stories published.

Doesn't sound like a win for anyone ("creator", publisher or readers).