Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
  1. #16
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bronx NY
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Creators by a landslide. Fans get disappointed because they get passed on from creative team to different creative team and lose their impact because the corporations want to milk the creative property. When a good creative team comes in, it springs back to life. Which can turn characters like Spider-Man and Superman to cultural icons. The bad is that the stakes could never be as high because they have to keep stories going no matter what and not even death is taken seriously anymore. I think it's better now since more creative teams especially ones with new property can create a beginning middle and end, a more fieshed out complete story. Imagine if Y the Last Man was still going on? I wouldn't even care anymore. Imagine if Spidey ended in 1970 and never came back? The story might have been more impactful, but, he probably wouldve became a relic of his time.

  2. #17
    Incredible Member Ulysses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    544

    Default

    The characters in superhero comics are owned by the same people who own the characters of greek myth.

  3. #18

    Default

    Creators should certainly have ownership of the fiction they create -- though, it is a bit questionable how far that should be extended. With Superman, rival comics heroes like Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) and Wonder Man faced lawsuits because they used the basic idea of Superman. However, was the idea of a hero with super-strength something that the creators of Superman owned? What about Hercules? Or the novels GLADIATOR (Wylie) or THE NTH MAN (Flint) that predated Superman? Characters should be owned, but general ideas...?

    However, honestly, for the most popular pieces of fiction in our contemporary world, most of them are not entirely owned by the creators. Certainly, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Star Wars and Star Trek no longer belong to their creators (most of whom are dead) nor to the creators producing the material today. Instead, to get into a little Marxist critique, they are primarily owned by those who also own the means of their production - the movie studios, media and publishing corporations. The copyright is an economic asset protected (and increasingly extended) for its value to people who do not contribute anything creatively to it.

    Added on to this, though, is a deeper philosophical and cultural question of how intellectual property affects us socially. If you think about it, what is the intellectual property that these media giants own? It's kind of a piece of your imagination. In the imaginations of the fans or even casual viewers of this material are where these stories and characters exist. They aren't isolated to the media we consume - that's just the delivery method - nor do they only exist in the minds of the actual creative people writing the stories, drawing or filming them. They live in our imaginations - we bring them to life. They have value because we use them to entertain ourselves. They are prepackaged daydreams with increasingly complex, developed and interactive worlds to keep us distracted and virtually living inside them. So a large part of ourselves, what we think, dream, talk about and obsess over is actually a product owned by and making money for someone who likely has added little if any creativity to it.

    So, we're basically paying to have our own minds colonized by these products and culturally that started at a very young age.
    Last edited by A Small Talent For War; 09-01-2019 at 09:25 AM.

  4. #19
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carabas View Post
    Welp, let's replace the line-up and coaches of a major sports team with a bunch of fans, and see how well they do.
    I think this analogy fits the theme of more than one answer in this thread. While many fans are very knowledgeable they often can be blinded by emotion in situations that require great foresight. Coaches and the line-up have practice the rigid discipline and many other factors that go into the final product or the performance.

  5. #20
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    98

    Default

    If someone created a character than the character belongs to the creator as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if the character created may be derivative of another. When it comes to most comic creators who just work on a pre-existing character that is created by someone else it's a toss up between them and the fans depending on how good or bad the creator is.

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRay View Post
    I think this analogy fits the theme of more than one answer in this thread. While many fans are very knowledgeable they often can be blinded by emotion in situations that require great foresight. Coaches and the line-up have practice the rigid discipline and many other factors that go into the final product or the performance.
    The only elements is that obviously there are more sports fans who become coaches and players in professional sports than in comics. There are plenty of fans in comics professions but it's actually not that often professionals had been fans of the comics they write and that is a good thing. Were Claremont and Byrne fans of the X-men when they took it over? Not really, but they made a book that in a lot of ways created comics fandom. A lot of time, no one really knows what comics are going to hit with readers, and most fans don't know what they really want until a book comes along that shows them "yeah, that's what I want." Who wanted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles before it hit the shops?

    However, fans certainly have more influence on the comics business than in any other medium. Even though there are a lot of young readers around the world still into comics, they aren't into Marvel or DC and have no real problem reading comics on screens instead of on the page. Also, it does seem like a lot of comics writers are not really fans of the characters or even fans of the medium itself. That this is a gig they can get instead of writing for Hollywood movies or television or writing a novel.

    Nevertheless, a lot of the best comics we've gotten and that have moved the industry forward were by teams who weren't necessarily fans of the characters or books they wrote and drew before they got on them. But I think the best creative teams are dedicated to the medium of comics, and there really shouldn't be any division or conflict between fans and the creators. No medium lasts long if it alienates anyone in its audience, but comics seems to depend on its audience pushing and talking about its books much more than any other form of entertainment.

  7. #22
    Amazing Member captchuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    74

    Default

    I put the creators first, meaning the original artist/writer teams. The corporation doesn't count. AT&T doesn't care about Superman or Batman (obviously).

  8. #23
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captchuck View Post
    I put the creators first, meaning the original artist/writer teams. The corporation doesn't count. AT&T doesn't care about Superman or Batman (obviously).
    It's not about caring, it's about ownership. Corporations have strong legal and official channels over characters when creators sell characters too.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member mathew101281's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulysses View Post
    The characters in superhero comics are owned by the same people who own the characters of greek myth.
    Actually, they have more in common with cereal mascots, and cartoon characters then mythic characters.

  10. #25

    Default

    I don't think there is an objective choice to this question. All of the choices have their own biases and perspectives so each of them are valid to me. Even as a fan studying to being a writer, I don't think there is a real difference beyond a skillset. Doctor Who proves that even if the fans got to run the show, it would be divisive as anything else.
    Last edited by the illustrious mr. kenway; 07-22-2020 at 12:18 PM.

  11. #26
    They LAUGHED at my theory SteveGus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Fans literally are the ones who invest time and money in characters. They have reasonable claims on their stories and their world. Not to have every story be excellent - no, that isn't a reasonable reequest - but at least to have the stories respect their history, their lore, and their core canon. If you think Captain America's patriotism is passť and want to turn him Nazi, you have no business mucking around with the character except something explicitly non-canon. If you think invisible jets, kangas, and Paradise Island are camp or silly you should stay away from Wonder Woman.
    "At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison

  12. #27
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    82

    Default

    it is actually based on everything, if they are creator but they do for others, they are not the owner to be exact. But if they do create for themselves, it is theirs. it doesn't matter whether some people care or not.

    the worst thing is some bunch of people claiming others as theirs. Arghh BAD:")

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •