Pat Mills

[Huey2]

After lessons were learnt by letting Millar loose on Robo-Hunter, there seems to be a gradual creep towards letting other writers have a go on established characters. Robo-Hunter, Ace Trucking, Ulysses Sweet, Anderson ( I know that the bulk of Anderson's adventures have been written by Alan Grant - not the original writer, but he was there from the start of her solo stuff and has certainly developed her as a character) and soon Cursed Earth Koburn and Devlin Waugh.

The problem with a lot of 2000ad tales is that they are so distinctive in style and tone that when a new writer has a go they don't feel like the same story. Many of Millar's Robo-Hunter stories, for example, are pretty good - it's the fact that it's clearly not the Sam Slade we know and love that spoils them. Had he created his own hero for hire to tell these stories they might be a lot higher regarded.

I'd really prefer it if the original writer was attached to the strip.

I think one problem is that it's important for 2000ad to have lots of successful, recognisable characters but many of the newer stories for 2000ad seem to be centred upon a concept or world rather than a central character. IMHO the most successful new stories of the past ten years have centred on a character instead: Stickleback, Gene Hackman, Absolom and Zombo.

[TordelBack]

I must have missed that news about Devlin!  I don't really know what the point of anyone other than Smith writing him is: he is the quintessential Smith character, if Tharg wants to run stories about a louche occult investigator there are plenty of other options. I'd rather no further stories at all, and I say that as a big fan. 

As a heavy pastiche in the first place the idea of Rennieless Koburn doesn't bother me so much, although I did think there was something missing in Mike's version in the recent Rico team-up.

Beyond that, it really is all a bit complicated.  Strips like Ace Trucking and Ulysses Sweet, that have been gone so long or ran so briefly, I don't have a problem with being revived under new management.  And Rennie's third and fourth (?) shots at the Rogue Trooper universe have been highlights of the last few years.  Beeby's Anderson stories were a breath of fresh air for the character, and I'd love to see more - even though Grant has returned to writing her in the Meg.

I think what I'm working towards is: it needs to be taken case-by-case, and carefully.  Sometimes a strip is so closely tied to the peculiarities of its creator that it seems wrong to even try; sometimes new eyes can energise a character or setting (e.g. Deadworld and NuEarth). 

[Colin YNWA]

Yeah intrigued to know where the news of more Devlin has come from, without Smith though... I have heard talk of another Smith series coming back without him at the helm... alas it might be that Tharg has got tired if waiting... but lets see what pans out before jumping to conclusions.

[Cyber-Matt]

Yeah intrigued to know where the news of more Devlin has come from, without Smith though...

If you read the interview with Rory in this month's Magazine, then it's all there.

[positronic]

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.

What if the publication was an entire comic devoted to that one strip, or even an original graphic novel?

Apart from a few short-lived competitors (Warrior, Toxic!, Deadline and perhaps on the stateside of publishing, Epic Magazine or Heavy Metal), there really are (or were) no comparable anthology venues for strips of the sci-fi/action genre to appear in, so any creator-owned property that began in 2000AD would more than likely need to make a go of it as some sort of standalone publication of its own. (Ironically or not, I first read Dave Gibbons' and Will Simpson's "War Machine" in the pages of Heavy Metal, where it was reprinted not too long after having appeared in 2000AD.)

Assuming you enjoyed a particular strip in 2000AD, and it continued to be written and drawn by the same creators, what would change? Or is that more of an economic decision?

[Magnetica]

I guess it is more the type of comic buyer I am. I only buy 2000AD and the Megazine* and don't in general seek out other publications.

So I am extremely unlikely to buy a new comic I have never heard of before, on spec if you will, just because it features a given writer or artist.

Yes I will agree with you to a certain extent that if a story that started in 2000AD carried on in its own comic, I might buy it. But that would not apply to everything. It is really a matter of volume and time to read them.

It is just a lot easier if Tharg does the work for me (including quality control) and presents them neatly packaged every week / month.

* I have made some exceptions recently e.g. IDW Dredd, Anderson and Rogue Trooper plus Rok of the Reds.

[Huey2]

I've enjoyed Emma Beeby's take on Anderson and also Gordon Rennie's new Rogue strips - just think I would have preferred it more had they told the same tales using characters of their own and not feeling tied down by other writer's continuity.

[positronic]

Some good comments there, everyone. And it must be admitted that by and large, the 2000AD editor have recognized where their bread is buttered, and have been mainly benign in letting the original creators curate their own strips. Dredd and the the many associated spinoffs would be the exception, although in many if not most cases, you might say the spinoffs are being shepherded by their original creators as well.

As many of you have commented, I think there were a number of mis-steps made by Tharg in the 1990s in assigning not-original-creators to certain long-running features, maybe in the belief that those strips might have become played-out under their original creators, and needed some new blood to shake up the status quo.

But in general, 2000AD editors haven't been as mercenary in exercising their power as their American counterparts in the comic industry. Still, this is the basic problem I see with publisher-ownership in general -- the balance of power between editors and creators is too one-sided, and limited only by the size of the creator's following among readers, and the potential clout that brings with it. When push comes to shove, the editor gets the last word even when it comes to to a disagreement with the strip's original creator. And it must be admitted that in some instances, even veteran creators can benefit from editorial input. They need to have some kind of sounding board because not all of them are incapable of the occasional mis-step. Editors can be wrong though, too.

Still, I think when it gets down to a real unworkable disagreement between editor and creator, in general the creator should get right-of-way, and if he's wrong, the readers will certainly let him know by their lack of enthusiasm for the finished product. I think creators certainly deserve to reap rewards from licensing and merchandising agreements.

As for the publisher, well maybe to be fair creator contracts could be written in such as way as to give the original publisher exclusive first right of refusal to publish any continuations, sequels/prequels, or spinoffs, until such time as the publisher no longer feels the strip is working to draw readers.

[Richard]

Still, I think when it gets down to a real unworkable disagreement between editor and creator, in general the creator should get right-of-way, and if he's wrong, the readers will certainly let him know by their lack of enthusiasm for the finished product.

That's exactly why the editor should have the last word! He is responsible for putting out a comic that people want to buy.

[positronic]

Still, I think when it gets down to a real unworkable disagreement between editor and creator, in general the creator should get right-of-way, and if he's wrong, the readers will certainly let him know by their lack of enthusiasm for the finished product.

That's exactly why the editor should have the last word! He is responsible for putting out a comic that people want to buy.

And of course that same reader lack of enthusiasm applied to the editor's decisions in the 1990s when things seemed to be going somewhat astray for 2000AD, which seems to demonstrate that the editor doesn't always have complete awareness of what readers want to buy.

I guess it's mere speculation to wonder whether if the actual creators of the strips were in control of their direction, they would have fared any better at that time, but my gut feeling is that things would hardly have fared any worse.

Putting creators in charge of creative decisions regarding their own strips doesn't totally abrogate the editor's power. He still has the last word on whether to buy a particular story or not, if he's not happy with it. It isn't as though he's forced to run whatever the creators decide to turn in, and that applies even more to to newer features just being developed, since no demand has yet been created for them among the readers.

The way that creator-ownership would change the usual method of doing things is that if the editor was hoping to run a popular feature like ABC Warriors, but wasn't happy with the direction of the story Pat Mills decided on, then he'd have to find another strip (not ABC Warriors) that he was happy with, to fill its place in the magazine -- unless he could cajole Pat Mills into coming around to his viewpoint on what he perceived as the problems with the story, and doing some re-writing. Yes the editor still gets to edit, it's just that the balance of power is no longer as one-sided.

[Richard]

That's a fair point.

I think so far as the 1990s are concerned, the problem was that there were rather terrible creators though, and the editor should have been a bit firmer with what they were allowed to get away with and who was allowed to work on the prog at all.

[Magnetica]

Isn't there a issue of time? If an editor gets a story he doesn't want to run and then has to get something else, won't he really be up against the clock and the risk is what replaces it is even worse?

Surely better to work with the creators during production to tweak it, rather than a binary run it or not at the end?

[positronic]

That's a fair point.

I think so far as the 1990s are concerned, the problem was that there were rather terrible creators though, and the editor should have been a bit firmer with what they were allowed to get away with and who was allowed to work on the prog at all.

It's hard to believe that with all the creators out there at the time, the editor couldn't find better material. Even if those 1990s creators had the ultimate say on what they would or would not do as far as complying with the editor's requests about changes to their submissions, the editor still had the power to disinclude their stories from the magazine.

You might think a situation where creator-ownership was understood might result in anarchy, but realize that economic necessity is driving those creators to attempt to keep the editor happy, so that the editor will continue to purchase stories from that same creator. Anyone who developed a reputation as "difficult to work with" or a "prima donna" is going to have a short career in the industry.

The other thing to consider is that the editor rarely has those sort of checks & balances overriding his policies and decisions, unless it's a large enough problem to work its way up the corporate chain, to where the editor's reputation for playing hardball with creators is turning talent away from the magazine.

On balance, the publisher will support the editor's decisions. But we've all read the crazy stories of IPC sub-editors who arbitrarily established nutty policies like "there will be an explosion in the third panel of every page, bar none" (an actual anecdote from TPO), or something as easily irrational. That's because once given the position, there's no one to tell the editor he can't do something, as long as he isn't spending all the company's budget or something that's getting the CEO's attention.

Freelance creators, even if they are creator-owners of properties, still need to depend on someone to pay them to publish their material, unless they want to undertake the financial risk of publishing it themselves. They can't be so stubborn as to alienate everyone who might want to pay them for doing what they do. They can't expect editors to refrain from having any say about the work they're buying, and they can't afford to be thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.

Some creators have been working in the industry longer than their editors, and there's a good chance they might know what they're talking about when they disagree with an editor. There's always a chance that the editor's right, and the creator's wrong, but does the editor feel strongly enough about his position to be willing to pass on the story altogether (knowing it's going to create a headache for him to fill those pages now)? Likewise, does the creator feel strongly enough about the rightness of his points of contention that he's willing to pass on a paycheck from the magazine? Not all the advantage is on either side.

[sheridan]

And of course that same reader lack of enthusiasm applied to the editor's decisions in the 1990s when things seemed to be going somewhat astray for 2000AD, which seems to demonstrate that the editor doesn't always have complete awareness of what readers want to buy.

Wouldn't Egmont interference have had something to do with things at this point as well?

[sheridan]

It's hard to believe that with all the creators out there at the time, the editor couldn't find better material. Even if those 1990s creators had the ultimate say on what they would or would not do as far as complying with the editor's requests about changes to their submissions, the editor still had the power to disinclude their stories from the magazine.

You might think a situation where creator-ownership was understood might result in anarchy, but realize that economic necessity is driving those creators to attempt to keep the editor happy, so that the editor will continue to purchase stories from that same creator. Anyone who developed a reputation as "difficult to work with" or a "prima donna" is going to have a short career in the industry.

Toxic! seemed pretty anarchic.  And short-lived