2000 AD Online Forum

Ok, apologies if the swear word was not acceptable - I didn't realise. I assume my question can still be asked though?

Pat is the granddaddy of 2000ad, there would be no prog without him. However, his stories lately have been severely lacking in coherence and storytelling.

I'm not the only one that feels this way. So the question is - Would the prog be better without his input?

I'm still enjoying Savage and ABC Warriors, and loving the gradual merge of the two worlds.

Defoe not so much a fan of.

I liked the last Greysuit, and so I'm looking forward to the next one. And I've also enjoyed the increasing overlap between Savage and ABC / Robusters recently.

Yes, quality can vary sometimes, but it does strike me as a bit of a harsh question tbh.

I'm a big fan of Mills' output.
Eagerly awaiting more Greysuit and I'm equally satisfied with Defoe, Savage and ABC Warriors.

Slaine has rather meandered of late, but that's still not a bad batting average!

Pat Mills writing has an energy and sense of endless enthusiasm that most other writers can only dream of.
Yes, his output is divisive. That doesn't make his work bad!
I'm no fan of Defoe for example, but I can still see the quality in the work. As can many others who praise it as Pat Mills' return-to-form strip. Slaine also has lost my interest recently, but I still wouldn't consider it bad comics.

On the other hand, most people appeared to hate American Reaper in the Meg. Whilst I wasn't a fan of it's presentation, I eventually found myself reading this before Dredd. I would now class myself as a 'fan' of AP, and look forward to it's possible return.

Guess what I'm trying to say is: the Prog would be far worse off without Pat Mills' contributions, even the ones you might not personally like.

Yes, I see a lot to like in Pat Mills's work.

I largely like:

Savage
The ABC Warriors
Slaine... (The older stuff*)
American Reaper. Yes... I liked this. A really good concept and nice art. (The panels take up too much of the page meaning the story moves at a slow pace in a monthly magazine, but I can see it working as a collection.)

I'm not so keen on (but don't hate):
Greysuit
Flesh - Actually this has it's moments.
Slaine - the Really new stuff.

So that's over half I like. THat's mainly sticking to the stuff that's is still or relatively recently going on.

Maybe I should have included Ro-Busters in the 'like' section as we've kind of returned to that, in the latter ABC Warriors stories.

*I'm mainly referring to The Horned God here, as I haven't read all that much older Slaine stuff.

I have this odd feeling that somebody created a sockpuppet.Nah,that would be crazy.

Quote from: Bluearmada on 31 May, 2017, 05:20:27 PM
Ok, apologies if the swear word was not acceptable - I didn't realise. I assume my question can still be asked though?

Just a question of being respectful and treading that fine line between criticism of a body of work and a personal attack. Creators are real people (well, droids) and several of them peruse the boards on occasion.

I still greatly enjoy the majority of Mr Mills output. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others feel the same. Besides that, to start a thread specifically to diss a veteran droid is not on, really.

I'm a big fun of Unky Pat's work, to be quite honest. And that includes American Reaper! The only thing I would say is that I preferred Finn to Slaine.

Cheers

Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 31 May, 2017, 07:12:42 PMJust a question of being respectful and treading that fine line between criticism of a body of work and a personal attack. Creators are real people (well, droids) and several of them peruse the boards on occasion.

This. We've had several creators leave these boards due to people here being very rude and disrespectful. Generally, this board is a pleasant place, and we have some pretty light-touch moderation. But there are rules, and not insulting creators is one of them. (That's not to say one cannot criticise – preferably constructively; just don't steam on in with "Isn't [creator] up their own arse?", for example.)

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 31 May, 2017, 07:55:20 PM
This. We've had several creators leave these boards due to people here being very rude and disrespectful. Generally, this board is a pleasant place, and we have some pretty light-touch moderation. But there are rules, and not insulting creators is one of them. (That's not to say one cannot criticise – preferably constructively; just don't steam on in with "Isn't [creator] up their own arse?", for example.)

Oh I didn't know that? Sadly that happens :(

Polarizing Pat Mills has fans and detractors in about equal measure. Although his philosophy became more esoteric in the late 80's/early 90's his observational political polemic has been a feature of his work since at lest the 1970's. It could be argued that he needs a firm editorial hand, but sugesting he should be put out to pasture is going to gain no traction here. 

If there's one thing that makes 2000ad shine above all other comics is its ability to support different stories and exposing you to things you might not otherwise read. It engages you in things you might miss, good and bad and that diversity is so important. Pat Mills writes stories I love, writes stories I don't get on with, but I'm damned glad he writes them all.

To try to push a view that as you don't like someone (and others might share that view) they shouldn't be in the comic is short sighted... well okay even I can think of a few exceptions to that over the years, but Pat Mills, nah his contributions good and bad (in my mind) are absolutely central to what defines 2000ad.

QuoteIf there's one thing that makes 2000ad shine above all other comics is its ability to support different stories and exposing you to things you might not otherwise read.

This is spot on. And Pat Mills's work is the best example of this in action.

Quote from: Richard on 31 May, 2017, 09:14:56 PM

QuoteIf there's one thing that makes 2000ad shine above all other comics is its ability to support different stories and exposing you to things you might not otherwise read.

This is spot on. And Pat Mills's work is the best example of this in action.

This says it all ^^^.

I do like a good Mills-moan, but when I look at my bookshelf, I see volume after volume of his that I treasure, from the start to last year.  Of his more modern stuff, Greysuit is the only one I can't be bothered with: and for the rest, if you don't like this 'book', you can assured that the next run will be wildly different.   I far prefer his 21st C output to much of his 90s stuff, and Defoe and Savage remain two of my favourite strips.

As I always say this comes up, Mills should always have a slot in 2000AD available to him. A happy Mills makes for a healthy prog.

When asked to list my 5 favourite comics I have to think twice to make sure I don't just include 3 Pat Mills comics.

The guy gets a Bowie Pass. Contribution is so great that whatever he wants to do is fine.

To be honest Bluearmarda, not sure about choosing this as your 4th post on forum and opening thread.
Maybe a respectful, well-considered, critique in an existing review thread.
Maybe some discussion of directions or topics you'd like to see his stories take.
Maybe some suggestions for thrusting young writers that you would like to see in the prog but you, possibly erroneously, feel are being kept out by the 'old guard'.
Maybe which character of his you would like to see 'do a Dredd' and get exposed to multiple creative voices.

There's ways to have a conversation on these kinds of topics.

I must admit that I do have issues with recent Mills output. His stories used to be tightly focussed, telling an interesting story every week and flowing from week to week. Latterly I find many of his episodes seem slowly paced and that they are disjointed from the previous week. I think the reason this grates though is not that Pat is bad and should be put out to pasture but that I know he is capable of better. When he does hit form he is still up there with the best of them.

We seem to have had this debate a number of times.

The case for-

- He pretty much invented the Prog in the first place
- He thought up all the stories in the first Prog apart from Dan Dare
- his editorial stint at the start shaped what 2000AD was
- although not credited as a co-creator he had a huge influence on Judge Dredd
- he has created and written some of the all time great 2000AD strips: Nemesis, Slaine, ABC Warriors/ Ro-Busters, Invasion/ Savage
- he continues to come up with new stuff: Greysuit, Defoe, American Reaper

The case against:
- some of the old stuff isn't as good as it used to be
- you might not like some of the new stuff

Overall, for me.... I'll let you draw your own conclusions

Quote from: Timothy on 31 May, 2017, 09:34:01 PMHis stories used to be tightly focussed, telling an interesting story every week and flowing from week to week. Latterly I find many of his episodes seem slowly paced and that they are disjointed from the previous week.

Hmmm, half a century in the weekly story business and pretty much guaranteed hardback treatment for at least half of his current output, can you blame him for shifting pace from idea-rammed 5-page stories towards writing for lushly illustrated volumes? 

If I had done in comics 10% of what Pat Mills has done and continues to do, I would be a very happy man.

I'm sorry, but I think the question is nothing more than creator baiting. I don't know why you felt the need to ask it.

But, since I am responding, yes, 2000ad is much better because of Mr. Mills' input.

I wouldn't be a comic reader today if it weren't for Pat. At a time, way back in the mid '80s, when I was starting to wonder if comics were something I should be growing out of, it was Pat who showed me that there were stories that could only be told through the medium of comics. Imagine Nemesis Book 3 or 4 told in prose or radio or telly. It couldn't be done. Nor could so many of his other stories.
And that's what makes Pat such a great comic writer, because so many other comic creators don't really grasp the potential of what comics can do - their stuff would be just as good in prose or film - perhaps better. Not so with Pat's stuff.

We should be grateful that Pat is still , 40 plus years on, working for 2000ad and still sharing his unique imagination with us. Just look at this week's prog. There are five good stories there but four of them wouldn't look that out of place in other publishers' books - it's the insane Defoe that could only find a home in 2000ad.

Mills has always, for me, varied in quality.

When he's good, though, he's very very good so I have no wich to see him go before he ecides he wants to.

These days Savage an ABC Warriors are his highlights. Hopefully Slaine will pick up again.

Quote from: RaggedMan on 31 May, 2017, 09:28:29 PM
When asked to list my 5 favourite comics I have to think twice to make sure I don't just include 3 Pat Mills comics.

The guy gets a Bowie Pass. Contribution is so great that whatever he wants to do is fine.

To be honest Bluearmarda, not sure about choosing this as your 4th post on forum and opening thread.
Maybe a respectful, well-considered, critique in an existing review thread.
Maybe some discussion of directions or topics you'd like to see his stories take.
Maybe some suggestions for thrusting young writers that you would like to see in the prog but you, possibly erroneously, feel are being kept out by the 'old guard'.
Maybe which character of his you would like to see 'do a Dredd' and get exposed to multiple creative voices.

There's ways to have a conversation on these kinds of topics.

Or even just a post on the 'new to the board' section...


I hope this doesn't ever become the kind of forum where personal attacks like that are tolerated.

Quote from: sheridan on 01 June, 2017, 12:53:15 PM
I hope this doesn't ever become the kind of forum where personal attacks like that are tolerated.

I don't for a moment think he was making it personal, just not phrasing his opinion in perhaps the best way.

Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 01 June, 2017, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: sheridan on 01 June, 2017, 12:53:15 PM
I hope this doesn't ever become the kind of forum where personal attacks like that are tolerated.

I don't for a moment think he was making it personal, just not phrasing his opinion in perhaps the best way.

Indeed. I'm sure there's a very similar post from me lurking in the Sc*j*-riddled archives of alt.comics.2000AD made during  the run of The Secret Commonwealth*, and I bet I was even nastier about David Bircham.  But I wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

We all struggle to improve the way we express ourselves, and I'm sure Bluearmada will one day be as taupe and tedious as me.

Although it is important to give Pat a theme for his next intro.



*The collection now proudly sat on the shelf facing me.

Sorry I ruffled feathers - I'm not creator baiting despite what certain members may think.

Pat gave birth to 2000ad and I can't thank him enough for that and his early stories. However, it appears that there is a lack of quality control with his latest tales and I can't help but feel that they are published simply because he wrote them!

Take a look back at the members prog reviews over the last few months. Slaine, ABC, Flesh, Defoe and the other one that was mainly excerpts from songs in its telling of the tale. I think you'll find most of the comments were unfavourable and the generally the worst thing in the prog.

Yes, I would love to new blood injected into these projects, wouldn't you?

I think what is irksome is that you've made 5 posts, all of them fairly negative towards a 2000AD creator, and not in a terribly constructive way either.

You could have said you would like to see some new writers/droids, but you certainly didn't need to take a pointless swipe at Pat Mills to do it.

Having two of your first three threads locked is not an auspicious start. Frankly I'm surprised this one hasn't been locked.

Okay,I wouldnt mind seeing what would other writers do with ABC Warriors or Slaine;but I think its still a bit early to count Pat out.

Quote from: von Boom on 01 June, 2017, 06:44:18 PM
I think what is irksome is that you've made 5 posts, all of them fairly negative towards a 2000AD creator, and not in a terribly constructive way either.

You could have said you would like to see some new writers/droids, but you certainly didn't need to take a pointless swipe at Pat Mills to do it.

Having two of your first three threads locked is not an auspicious start. Frankly I'm surprised this one hasn't been locked.

Yes, I completely agree with you. I think after being a regular reader back in the 80s and back on board the last six months - I may be looking back with rose tinted glasses, but I've been frustrated with all the recent Mills tales and even now I'm struggling to remember them. 

Don't take it personal that I'm complaining about his recent output and I hope Pat wouldn't, but I think it's fair to criticise an artist if their work has been sub-par.

It's a discussion board - what's the problem? Would it have been preferable if my first post had been - Deadworld sucked until the latest instalment, but now it's ace?

Quote from: Bluearmada on 01 June, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
I hope Pat wouldn't

I think you might be sadly disappointed...

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 01 June, 2017, 07:33:50 PM

Quote from: Bluearmada on 01 June, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
I hope Pat wouldn't

I think you might be sadly disappointed...

If someone in the public eye can't take criticism for there work, then yes, that is disappointing.

If by 'take criticism' you mean a creator should carefully reflect on your expert analysis of his work, thank you for your time and resolve to take your points on board, then I think you're living in some other reality. Not that you've given him anything to work with yet.

And as for Pat , he's the Gaffer, he's far beyond listening to the mewling of supposed fans on the forum provided by the publishers of the comic he created. He gets to write what he wants, and and if you don't like it skip to the next story.

Can we leave the individual out of it for a moment, ask, for example, what is it about the current run of Defoe you think is sub-par? That would be the start of a useful discussion from which we might all learn something instead of wanting to belaber you around the head with a copy of the The Complete Ro-Busters.

Or the mods could just call time out and lock this fucker.

Quote from: Bluearmada on 01 June, 2017, 06:34:04 PM
I would love to (see) new blood injected into these projects, wouldn't you?

That's not really how 2000ad - certainly modern era 2000ad - works.

Residents of Fukushima can count the number of strips that have been thrown out to pool writers on the fingers of one hand. Dredd's the most notable example; the results vary from the occasionally inspired* to violating article three of the EU convention on human rights.

Rogue Friday/Cyan, Harlem Heroes, and Strontium Doggies are the obvious instances of Nineties Tharg adopting Big Two HR policy **. Presumably, those duds are why Tharg no longer offers day rates to any hack willing to plaster over the cracks in Robo-hunter continuity.

I'm no more interested in Arthur Wyatt's ABC Warriors than I would be in reading TC Eglinton's Nikolai Dante versus Leviathan or Rory McConville's Cradlegrave:The Return. Just like Mills and Wagner's 20th century creations, all those strips are work for hire efforts, © TMO.

Tharg won't inflict such atrocities upon me because of his sensible 21st century approach of dropping strips when the writer leaves the comic ***. I don't see why Brother Mills should be treated any differently - crucially, neither does he.


* the most successful example by far being scripted by Patrick Mills of Colchester

** Abnett's Durham Red and VCs have their admirers, but I doubt he'd bump Kingdom from his CV to accommodate either.

*** the most recent exceptions being Green Bonce's hilarious trolling of Grant Morrison via Ulysses Sweet. Reserving occasional trips down memory lane with old favourites for Summer Specials seems like a nice compromise

Quote from: Bluearmada on 01 June, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
It's a discussion board - what's the problem? Would it have been preferable if my first post had been - Deadworld sucked until the latest instalment, but now it's ace?

Speaking personally, I would find that preferable - 'it took a while, but I'm really liking these creators work now' is much better than saying 'it's time for $creator to retire'.

Bluearmada, it seems odd that you went through the effort of creating 3 threads to go on about Mills...I believe Pats pinions of any criticisms regarding 2000ad or his work are neatly summed up in his final sentence of the 2000ad documentary....

Also, I enjoy his ABC Warriors

Well, if nothing else this thread has occasioned the return of Butch Bikini Frank Sauchie to the active posters' register, and that's something. 

I recently read all four volumes of ABC Warriors: The Volgan War one day, followed the next day all three volumes of the ABC "Return to" trilogy, and thought they were unquestionably brilliant, on so many levels.

It's possible that the work reads differently in short installments spaced out over months at time, but I'm convinced Pat Mills knows precisely what he's doing.

Quote from: Magnetica on 31 May, 2017, 09:36:48 PM
We seem to have had this debate a number of times.

The case for-

- He pretty much invented the Prog in the first place
- He thought up all the stories in the first Prog apart from Dan Dare
- his editorial stint at the start shaped what 2000AD was
- although not credited as a co-creator he had a huge influence on Judge Dredd
- he has created and written some of the all time great 2000AD strips: Nemesis, Slaine, ABC Warriors/ Ro-Busters, Invasion/ Savage
- he continues to come up with new stuff: Greysuit, Defoe, American Reaper

...and there is that, as well. No small things.

Even apart from 2000AD, something like Marshal Law is an unheralded work of genius. It should rank right up there with The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, but somehow it never attained that status.

But Marshal Law is heralded? Mills & O'Neill at their over-the-top best. And it could only be a comic.

Best thing about PM is that if you asked 6 readers to pick favourite works, you' could well get 6 different answers. That's quite something.

Quote from: Steven Denton on 31 May, 2017, 08:41:31 PM
It could be argued that he needs a firm editorial hand, but suggesting he should be put out to pasture is going to gain no traction here.

I'm torn between this ^^^ and the sockpuppet comment.

Like all the greats, Pat needs someone to clash/create with: Strummer/Jones, Lennon/Mccartney, Stan and Ollie...
Mills and Wagner???

Quote from: Fungus on 02 June, 2017, 11:04:20 AM
But Marshal Law is heralded? Mills & O'Neill at their over-the-top best. And it could only be a comic.

I don't believe Marshal Law is recognized (at least among the wider mainstream comic fandom in the US) as having the stature it truly deserves.

There may be a few reasons for that. Perhaps in 1987 the mainstream of comics fandom was not prepared to accept such a radical stylist as Kevin O'Neill; it tended to get lost in the wake of TDKR and Watchmen, and because it was originally published under Marvel's Epic Comics imprint; it may not be so apparent in the face of its parody aspects that the work actually has something to say; and perhaps most crucially, it seems to have touched a raw nerve in fans by being critical of the superhero genre (some critics accused it of being "mean-spirited").

I'm sure that it was better acknowledged in England, where Mills and O'Neill's prior work was well-received. Then again, how to explain the failure of Judge Dredd to ever gain more than a cult acceptance among US readers?

Quote from: Fungus on 02 June, 2017, 11:04:20 AM
But Marshal Law is heralded? Mills & O'Neill at their over-the-top best. And it could only be a comic.

I have read a Marshal Law book of the text variety, written by Pat Mills. (A novela or short story.) It had lots of nice accompanying comic style art too, but it definitely wasn't a comic book.

I also didn't think it was very good, and I do like the comics, well the first arcs, anyway, before the zombie nonsense, (and I like zombies usually. It just went out of its way to be a bit too nasty for my taste) so you might have a point!

That being said, the story told was okay, it was mainly the narrative style I had an issue with, which is likely a matter of taste.

I was composing a long reply, but I think everything's been said - to be exact:

Quote from: Woolly on 31 May, 2017, 06:15:57 PM
the Prog would be far worse off without Pat Mills' contributions, even the ones you might not personally like.

Quote from: TordelBack on 31 May, 2017, 09:24:44 PM
As I always say this comes up, Mills should always have a slot in 2000AD available to him. A happy Mills makes for a healthy prog.

Quote from: RaggedMan on 31 May, 2017, 09:28:29 PM
The guy gets a Bowie Pass. Contribution is so great that whatever he wants to do is fine.

Quote from: DrJomster on 31 May, 2017, 10:59:28 PM
If I had done in comics 10% of what Pat Mills has done and continues to do, I would be a very happy man.

Personally, I don't like a lot of Pat's curent output - Greysuits and American Reaper leave me cold, Defoe, Slaine and Flesh are on-and-off, but I love Savage and ABC Warriors.

Buit oh my God what wonders he has given us over 40 years - the Cursed Earth, Nemesis, ABC warriors, Slaine ..... yeah, he's a pass

For everything he's done, I woudn't object to a guaranteed 5 pages of every prog reserved for Pat, whatever he wanted to fill it with.

As for the original poster - why would you join a 2000ad forum purely to slag off the creator of the comic?

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

(//)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Was this ever actually clearly stated?

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.

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).

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.

You cads! With all your talk of comics and creators, you've driven the sockpuppet away!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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). 

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.

Quote from: Colin YNWA on 08 June, 2017, 09:01:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Magnetica on 08 June, 2017, 03:11:01 PM
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?

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.

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.

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.

QuoteStill, 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.

Quote from: Richard on 09 June, 2017, 06:22:27 PM

QuoteStill, 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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Richard on 10 June, 2017, 12:04:28 PM
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.

Quote from: positronic on 10 June, 2017, 10:55:25 AM
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?

Quote from: positronic on 10 June, 2017, 05:53:30 PM
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 :(

Something caught my eye in TPO last night. Apparently Pat Mills said (back in 2004) that he thought only the original writers and artists should work on a character / series. Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Indeed we have seen many different artists over the years on Mills' own strips giving them a fresh take:

Talbot, Hickleton and others on Nemesis
Fabry, McMahon, Bisley, Langley, Davis on Slaine
MacNeil on Defoe

And loads of other examples on Savage, Flesh etc

And yes I know Pat is on record as saying the multiple different artists on ABC Warriors first series is what prompted him to not carry on with it for years. But after that there have been fresh takes by Bisley, Flint, Langley etc.

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

The writer is the one* who comes up with the story (and yes I know there are loads of examples where the artists make massive contributions to the direction of a strip) but in a lot of cases it is the writer who comes up with the plot and where the strip will go.

The artist then visualises it.

Anyway the point was there are loads of examples where artist other than the original has drawn Mills' strip, which seems to be at odds with what TPO is quoting him to have said.

* usually I mean. I know Henry Flint came up with Shakara and Zombo (IIRC).

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 13 June, 2017, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:44:34 AM
The writer is the one* who comes up with the story (and yes I know there are loads of examples where the artists make massive contributions to the direction of a strip) but in a lot of cases it is the writer who comes up with the plot and where the strip will go.

or Editors, or publishers, or IP holders...

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 13 June, 2017, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now  :lol:

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 10:04:24 AM
And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

Nobody said you did. I said you were (and clearly are) asserting that the artist is less important than the writer.

I have no issue with artists being replaced on strips. By the same token, I have no issue with writers being replaced on strips. Generally speaking, I think that should be by mutual agreement in both cases. If the artist needs deadline assistance, or doesn't want to do it any more, fair enough. By the same token, if a writer doesn't want to do more work on a company-owned character, it's entirely appropriate to assign a new writer.

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 10:04:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 13 June, 2017, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now  :lol:

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

I don't have a problem with the artist or the writer being changed on IP that's corporate owned. I do have a problem with the idea that changing the artist is OK but changing the writer isn't because some how the writer is more creatively important to a strip then the artist. Stan Lee claimed to be sole creator of his characters on the grounds that he came up with them and if the artist that did hadn't drawn them another one would have. I don't agree with Stan Lee.

as for how long I would wait, I would wait as long as it took if that's the creative model being used.

Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable!  ;) However, IMO a good writer brings plotting, characterisation and direction, which may be more important to the consistency of an ongoing strip than the visualisation, storytelling and atmosphere that an artist generally brings: although the ere are plenty of exceptions.  And writers can outpace artists by ten pages to one, the pressure to use multiple artists is always there.

Variety in visuals is easier to adapt to a to that variability in writing: I'd cite Power's beautifully on-model Dredd on Book of the Dead versus the gibberish of Millar's script, or the shocking waste of Ron Smith on Fleischer's Rogue Trooper: either of those strips can survive and thrive with multiple art styles, but those writers killed them stone dead.  Skizz II is another interesting one.

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 10:04:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 13 June, 2017, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now  :lol:

Quick calculation - at that rate we'd be around the end of The Shoggey Beast!

Oh, and I don't know the exact details, but I suspect it's unlikely that Pat Mills and Angela Kincaid would be working on anything any more (other than being parents).

Quote from: TordelBack on 13 June, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Variety in visuals is easier to adapt to a to that variability in writing: I'd cite Power's beautifully on-model Dredd on Book of the Dead versus the gibberish of Millar's script, or the shocking waste of Ron Smith on Fleischer's Rogue Trooper: either of those strips can survive and thrive with multiple art styles, but those writers killed them stone dead.  Skizz II is another interesting one.

For me the prime example are 1990s Dredd stories which were not written by Wagner/Grant but were drawn by King Carlos.  Thankfully Rebellion have managed to find non-Wagner writers who get Dredd in ways that Morrison/Millar/Ennis never did.

It's easier to replace an artist, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes it's practical to replace an artist on an on-going story in a way it may not be as practical to replace a writer. arguably at the moment it even makes good business sense an writers have become the draw. What it isn't is any more creatively valid than replacing a writer. 

Back in the 70s, when Pat Mills essentially created Battle, Action, 2000AD, Misty and maybe some other new comics, the model was for him, the originator/editor to develop ideas for characters and stories that could, potentially, run for episode after episode for years. And it was always the intention for more than one writer + artist to tackle those jobs, wasn't it?

I understand that this model isn't at all fashionable any more, but I do miss the idea of comics including characters where there can simply be a story of the week/month, one that can be attempted by different creative teams. The Prog has Judge Dredd and Sinister Dexter for that currently, and maybe the occasional Rogue Trooper outing. But everything else is all high-concept, big ongoing serial type adventure (and in fact SinDex has sort of been that for the last few years., perhaps because Abnett would/did get bored of writing one-off comedy stories?)

Of course this does result in the massively mixed-quality of the very early 2000AD progs, that alternated between really good MACH One stroies, and really bad ones, but it's a fun experiment I think.

I'm not sure if 2000AD is actively looking for 'the next Judge Dredd', but if it is, it surely has to be a story/character that can cope with being wirtten and drawn by more than one team of people?

I apoligise in advance if I've completely misread the old-style of British comics making!

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 01:12:02 PM
It's easier to replace an artist, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes it's practical to replace an artist on an on-going story in a way it may not be as practical to replace a writer. arguably at the moment it even makes good business sense an writers have become the draw. What it isn't is any more creatively valid than replacing a writer.

For me it's about having a consistent vision of what the strip is and where it is going long term. That's what I want anyway, rather than either just making it up as you go along or just being a sandbox to play in, allowing different tales to be told but which don't lead to any character development or ongoing plot points.

Surely the long term vision of where the plot and character development comes from is the writer (or the writer in conjunction with a partner or editor).

The artist can change with out that long term vision changing. Yes the artist may influence it ( e.g. some artist are good at drawing certain things or make suggestions - that's why we got dragons in Kingmaker for instance), but surely, in the majority of cases it is the writer who is the main driver of the overall direction.
If you change the writer you will end up somewhere different.

To use an example from another medium, there were a range of different directors for the Harry Potter films, but it was JK Rowling's books they were filming.

You have said you don't mind writers or artists changing on properties the publisher owns, just that changing the writer or artist is equally valid  ( or no more valid depending on the way round). That's your opinion, I just don't agree. If you continually changed both there would be no overall vision ( other than that set by the editor - but in that case I would argue the editor is doing more than editing it; he has become the "show runner" to borrow a TV term.)

But there is also the exception - I can't stand Strontium Dog by any one other than Carlos, Robo Hunter by anyone but Gibson, Ace Trucking by any one but Massimo. But having said that all of those have to be by Wagner and /or Grant for me. ( And Wagner, Grant or Wagner and Grant count as the same author for the point of my argument  :lol: :lol: :lol:)


@ Alex - I might be wrong, but isn't Sinister Dexter always written by Dan Abnett?

I disagree, but I buy 80% of my comics for the art.

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 02:46:21 PM
I disagree, but I buy 80% of my comics for the art.

Likewise. Found it interesting in the recent thread on Story v Art that caring more about the art put me in a small minority. I don't require 'epics' or characters to go through psychological 'arcs' or any of that gubbins. It's nice when you're tickled or wrong-footed by a story but what I really remember and enjoy is the telling, the artistry, the splash page. D'Israeli's bent-double Stickleback. Bolland's page-turn intro to the Dark Judges. Maybe I'm shallow  :)

For me the story has to engage me first. I used to buy many more comics, but dropped them as the stories failed to interest me any more. I couldn't buy them simply because I liked the art, which I often marvelled at. I'm down to the Prog and the Meg now as they're the only ones I find that the stories catch me on a consistent basis.

That isn't to say that the art in those mags isn't always great as well, we all know it is. :)

Quote from: TordelBack on 13 June, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable!  ;)

I realise that was a joke, but one instance that jumped out at me was the last episode of The Dead.  Annoyingly Barney doesn't say who the lettering droid was, but I'm sure it changed drastically in that episode.

Quote from: sheridan on 13 June, 2017, 11:00:45 PM

Quote from: TordelBack on 13 June, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Writers and artists are equally important in making comics - it's only letterers that are disposable!  ;)

I realise that was a joke, but one instance that jumped out at me was the last episode of The Dead.  Annoyingly Barney doesn't say who the lettering droid was, but I'm sure it changed drastically in that episode.

For some irrational reason the re-done lettering in one of the Button Man trades really puts me off.

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 10:14:59 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 10:04:24 AM

Quote from: Steven Denton on 13 June, 2017, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 13 June, 2017, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Magnetica on 13 June, 2017, 09:34:19 AM
Now as I wrote earlier I agree wrt to the writer but I don't quite understand the logic on the artist. It is not practical for the same artist to draw every episode and indeed different artists can breath new life into strips.

Why is the artist regarded as of lesser importance than the writer? Why is a new artist's interpretation of a series 'breath[ing] new life' but a new writer's is somehow a betrayal of the series' creative vision?

I agree with Jim. If you take a purist approach or a creator owned approach you can't place one original creator above the other.

If Nemesis had been entirely drawn by Kevin O'Neill I don't think I would have liked it any less.

Ok...so how long would you be prepared to wait for each series?

The fact is it takes a lot longer for artists to produce a page than it does for a writer.

It took Angie Mills something like 18 months to draw the first episode of Slaine. At that rate if she had drawn every episode we would be up to about Dragon Heist by now  :lol:

IMO a series hangs together as a complete thing based on the overall direction set by the writer (and ok yes the editor makes a contribution as well),

Take Nikolai Dante as an example. I view it as a complete story. It would not be if someone other than Robbie Morrison had written it and taken it in a different direction. Having had multiple artists doesn't change that.

And BTW I never said the artist wasn't important. Indeed the phrase "breathing new life into a strip" shows I value the artist.

I don't have a problem with the artist or the writer being changed on IP that's corporate owned. I do have a problem with the idea that changing the artist is OK but changing the writer isn't because some how the writer is more creatively important to a strip then the artist. Stan Lee claimed to be sole creator of his characters on the grounds that he came up with them and if the artist that did hadn't drawn them another one would have. I don't agree with Stan Lee.

as for how long I would wait, I would wait as long as it took if that's the creative model being used.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see writers and artists as equally responsible for the finished product, even though, for me, the art gets me to buy many more comics than the story. 

Recently I got into reading 'The Walking Dead'.  Robert Kirkman has always been the writer but, for the first 6 issues Tony Moore did the pencils.  After that though Charlie Adlard took over.  I so much prefer Moore's art to Adlard that I keep losing interest in the whole series now, whereas when Moore was drawing I couldn't put it down. 

I get a similar but opposite effect with Defoe where I don't yet understand what's happening in the story (I'm going to reread the whole thing when it's finished so I can really get it) but Colin MacNeil's art draws me in anyway.

I do get that the artwork takes more time, but I too would be more than willing to wait for an artist I love.

The Moore WD issues are great, but I'd be sure that a big part of the book's widespread success is its insane reliability and regularity: the collections come out more frequently than some other 'monthly' books!  Whetever reservations I may have about WD, Adlards'sent is incredible, 250-odd pages a year for 13 years: he's well past the demi-Cerebus mark already, and he's not even insane yet.

Quote from: TordelBack on 21 June, 2017, 03:21:44 PM
The Moore WD issues are great, but I'd be sure that a big part of the book's widespread success is its insane reliability and regularity: the collections come out more frequently than some other 'monthly' books!  Whetever reservations I may have about WD, Adlards'sent is incredible, 250-odd pages a year for 13 years: he's well past the demi-Cerebus mark already, and he's not even insane yet.

I totally agree about Adlard's workrate and reliability as an artist.  From what I read, I got the idea that it was this skill set particularly which made Adlard a better choice for Kirkman as well as his excellent artistic skills.  I do still have a strong personal preference for Moore's art but it's doesn't stop me recognising Adlard's excellence.

Quote from: JoFox2108 on 21 June, 2017, 03:56:31 PM
I totally agree about Adlard's workrate and reliability as an artist.  From what I read, I got the idea that it was this skill set particularly which made Adlard a better choice for Kirkman as well as his excellent artistic skills.  I do still have a strong personal preference for Moore's art but it's doesn't stop me recognising Adlard's excellence.

There's something slightly comedic in tone to Moore's style that made it seem like an odd fit for Walking Dead, if I'm honest.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 21 June, 2017, 04:26:52 PM


There's something slightly comedic in tone to Moore's style that made it seem like an odd fit for Walking Dead, if I'm honest.

I know what you mean, I think that's partly why I liked it.  I really enjoyed the serious story with a lighter style of art.  It stood out as a bit odd in an enjoyable way for me.  I can see why Adlard's art, being more gritty and adult styled might be a better fit, it's just not my favourite style.  I still like it but it doesn't get to me like Moore's art does.  Just a personal taste.