Thread Drift: What Fans Want

[cyberhubbs]

It's about letting the fans be heard, not dismissing but having respect for your audience, the reason for which you have a job writing comics in the first place.

Fans can be heard all they want. But expecting a writer to pattern his run according to "market research"? Whatever pandering a writer does toward a fanbase should be at their discretion.

[Metamorphosis]

I'm against fans dictating what should done in creative endeavors. Like fans asking a musician to make only music they like. What about what the musician wants to do. I mean, he/she is the one actually making the music. It's the same thing for writing a comic book. Does anybody here think it would be fair tell Dan Slott (who is a huge Spider-Man fan and worked for years to get to this point in his career) to not write a story that he has had in his head for god knows how long because some random fan wants to relive their youth with a certain story or some random fan thinks they can do better?*Especially since Dan Slott does not work for the random fan. (Remember, just because you buy the comic, don't think that the creative team works for you. Do you sign their paychecks?)[/I]

I thought about this analogy already, and no, it's not really the same thing. You wouldn't tell a band that doesn't sound like Nirvana to sound more like Nirvana, you'd seek out a band that already sounds like Nirvana. You have a lot more options. Readers who don't like current Spider-man comics don't have any other option as there's basically only one main book being published through one publisher, one choice and largely one creative team.

[cyberhubbs]

You're right. I actually have less on the line.

I can't be fired from doing commissions. But Dan Slott can be fired from Marvel comics at any time, for any reason.

Well, I don't know if you can't be fired from commissions. Someone might not like the final product.

In either case, yeah, Slott can be fired. But if it's going to be because of a creative decision, it should be his creative decision. Not because a poll said he should have the Gibbon take over Spider-Man for a little while.

[Kevinroc]

I thought about this analogy already, and no, it's not really the same thing. You wouldn't tell a band that doesn't sound like Nirvana to sound more like Nirvana, you'd seek out a band that already sounds like Nirvana. You have a lot more options. Readers who don't like current Spider-man comics don't have any other option as there's basically only one main book being published through one publisher, one choice and largely one creative team.

You could always not buy current Spider-Man comics if you don't like them. In fact, that's a lot healthier than continuing to support a book that is going in a direction you are not enjoying.

[cyberhubbs]

I thought about this analogy already, and no, it's not really the same thing. You wouldn't tell a band that doesn't sound like Nirvana to sound more like Nirvana, you'd seek out a band that already sounds like Nirvana. You have a lot more options. Readers who don't like current Spider-man comics don't have any other option as there's basically only one main book being published through one publisher, one choice and largely one creative team.

I mean...oh well? We all want everyone to be happy, but sometimes you just can't make everyone happy.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Basically, this is what some are saying, "I want Marvel to make a Spider-Man book that has the stories I want to read". At first that sounds like a reasonable request. Only problem is not all Spider-Man fans want the same kind of stories.

I'm against fans dictating what should done in creative endeavors. Like fans asking a musician to make only music they like. What about what the musician wants to do. I mean, he/she is the one actually making the music. It's the same thing for writing a comic book. Does anybody here think it would be fair tell Dan Slott (who is a huge Spider-Man fan and worked for years to get to this point in his career) to not write a story that he has had in his head for god knows how long because some random fan wants to relive their youth with a certain story or some random fan thinks they can do better?*Especially since Dan Slott does not work for the random fan. (Remember, just because you buy the comic, don't think that the creative team works for you. Do you sign their paychecks?)

If a person wants Spider-Man stories to be the way they want them to be, the best thing they can do is get a job at Marvel and write the book themselves. Or stop reading the books until someone writes it the way they want.

Let the creators create.

* Run-on sentence alert

But he does work for a company that sells to a large number of fans, and thus he has to produce a product that satisfies as many fans as possible.

[Metamorphosis]

Fans can be heard all they want. But expecting a writer to pattern his run according to "market research"? Whatever pandering a writer does toward a fanbase should be at their discretion.

You keep going back to this concept that sounds like popular comic creators create in a void, like comic writers are some kind of delicate geniuses.

They should WANT to reach as wide an audience as possible. It's why Slott dumps Lizard and Electro arcs on us to create synergy with the movies.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Assuming you take a poll and run the book from that, then what happens to the people that don't like the direction? Let's say 75% of people want more appearances by Cardiac and the other 25% don't.

In the past, the book either had Cardiac or it didn't. Now you're actively telling 25% of your readers that they're opinion doesn't matter.

Also, where do you do the polls? Just because you ask people want they want to see in Spider-man doesn't mean they ARE Spider-man fans to begin with. Wolverine and Thor fans might have ideas of what would make the book more to their liking, but how much value do you place in the opinion of somebody that wasn't even reading Spider-man to begin with?

Then of course you';re going to get the people online saying that, yeah, they votes to have Harry Osborn back as Hobgoblin but that totally kills the mystery of who the new Hobgoblin is. Or maybe they get online and complain that they voited for it, but they don't like the way the writer is handling it.

Then there's the fact that the people who VOTE might not be the vocal majority online.

Or you could just simply talk to fans and see what they have to say.

Again, we're not talking about doing fan polls and dictating the direction of the book because of that.

But if you have a considerable amount of people say "You know, I really liked Cardiac" then you could perhaps entertain the idea of bringing the character back. As they already did.

[cyberhubbs]

You keep going back to this concept that sounds like popular comic creators create in a void, like comic writers are some kind of delicate geniuses.

They should WANT to reach as wide an audience as possible. It's why Slott dumps Lizard and Electro arcs on us to create synergy with the movies.

And at the end of the day, that Lizard story and Electro story are stories he wants to tell. He might not want to tell the story you just "market researched".

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Fans can be heard all they want. But expecting a writer to pattern his run according to "market research"? Whatever pandering a writer does toward a fanbase should be at their discretion.

Since when did writing a story that might entertain and satisfy people become "pandering?"

[cyberhubbs]

Or you could just simply talk to fans and see what they have to say.

Again, we're not talking about doing fan polls and dictating the direction of the book because of that.

But if you have a considerable amount of people say "You know, I really liked Cardiac" then you could perhaps entertain the idea of bringing the character back. As they already did.

Entertaining an idea is one thing. But it sounds like fans trying to get their foot in the door, so to speak, to actively influence stories they're not writing. 'Cause when the writer says, "Sorry, we get you all like Cardiac, but I don't have any current ideas for the character," someone is going to act butt-hurt because they weren't listened to.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Well, I don't know if you can't be fired from commissions. Someone might not like the final product.

Which is why I show them what I am doing every step of the way.

In either case, yeah, Slott can be fired. But if it's going to be because of a creative decision, it should be his creative decision. Not because a poll said he should have the Gibbon take over Spider-Man for a little while.

That would be nice. In an ideal world.

But that's not how these things work.

[cyberhubbs]

Since when did writing a story that might entertain and satisfy people become "pandering?"

Because the writer isn't telling his story. He's telling yours.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Entertaining an idea is one thing. But it sounds like fans trying to get their foot in the door, so to speak, to actively influence stories they're not writing. 'Cause when the writer says, "Sorry, we get you all like Cardiac, but I don't have any current ideas for the character," someone is going to act butt-hurt because they weren't listened to.

And yet, those fans still eventually got their Cardiac appearances.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Because the writer isn't telling his story. He's telling yours.

With a character they didn't create, in a franchise they didn't help build, building upon a mythology that lasted decades before they ever came on the title, and from which they could be fired from at any time?