"Spider-Gwen" Artist: "We Can't Really Create New Characters"

[vonfaustus]

I for one actually think this is more a good thing than a bad one. I mean, the freedom to create new characters is all well and good from a writer's perspective, but from a reader's prospective in a venue like the Marvel Universe where there are probably, like, 10 THOUSAND characters already in the mix? I don't think it's really all that good...

Don't worry. That's all Marvel pretty much does now anyways: Rehash old ideas because 1) Corporate mandate of not creating new ideas for properties that are licensed out to "the competition" and 2) creators don't like the idea of someone else making longterm money off their ideas and getting screwed out of it.

[TOTALITY]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a case of outsider speculation becoming such "common knowledge" that it eventually gets repeated by someone that outsiders would believe to be much more informed, and thus taken as "confirmed." People forget that most creators are fans too, there's not some wall between "things fans talk about" and "things creators talk about" and in the big scheme of things I doubt every freelance artist is *that much* closer to the intricacies of high level corporate licensing contracts.

Not that Robbie Rodriguez isn't undoubtedly more informed than anyone posting here, I just still find it very hard to imagine that there is some set in stone "rule" that new characters aren't allowed to be created, or that movie rights are actually invoked in editorial decisions with great regularity. It seems like just a way to place Spider-Gwen's remix aesthetic in a larger context in a way that makes enough sense to talk about in an interview or bolster an overall creative approach, rather than a thing where they're actually like 'and then there could be a character who.. wait, that would be a new character, can't do that because of the Sony rule.'

[Cmbmool]

Well, there goes any chances at Marvel making SPider-Gwen a Top Ten best Seller.

[vonfaustus]

Not that Robbie Rodriguez isn't undoubtedly more informed than anyone posting here, I just still find it very hard to imagine that there is some set in stone "rule" that new characters aren't allowed to be created, or that movie rights are actually invoked in editorial decisions with great regularity...

Why is that so hard to believe? The idea of parent company involvement is nothing new. I can completely see a meeting room full of suits flipping their **** that a competing company is making a profit off their properties and trying their hardest to stop that.

[Cmbmool]

Looks like Newsarama.com clear things up abit...
http://www.newsarama.com/25405-spide...ie-rights.html

[solletaire]

Looks like Newsarama.com clear things up abit...
http://www.newsarama.com/25405-spide...ie-rights.html

My theory is that editors might not want too many new characters in a book and they communicate that to their artist. The artist then interprets these rules as having something to do with Sony and FOX and not as having something to do with the editorial vision for the title. E.G.,

Spider-Man editors would rather the team re-imagine existing characters to emphasize connection with the main Marvel Universe and squarely place Spider-Gwen in the center of the MU even though she inhabits her own What If?! reality...

Going back to what @TOTALITY said, freelance artists who are not privy to much of the inner workings of the company interpret editorial rules based on fan gossip and conspiracy theories that dominate the interwebs...

[cranger]

Saw the update on this, and of course, as expected, there is a complete denial that anyone said anything (even though he was very detailed as to how character creation would work as a result of this rule) and then spin it around and blame the 'rumor' sites.

[Username taken]

Looks like Newsarama.com clear things up abit...
http://www.newsarama.com/25405-spide...ie-rights.html

Good to see this.

Most of us following the Spider-man titles found it pretty bizarre that they can't introduce new characters when so many have already been introduced.

It didn't make any sense.

[Username taken]

Well, there goes any chances at Marvel making SPider-Gwen a Top Ten best Seller.

Wasn't the title already in the top ten?

[AcesX1X]

wow i hope robbi rodriguez didn't get in trouble here. this all happened so fast today, it would have made even quicksilver's head spin.

[TOTALITY]

Why is that so hard to believe? The idea of parent company involvement is nothing new. I can completely see a meeting room full of suits flipping their **** that a competing company is making a profit off their properties and trying their hardest to stop that.

What you're describing is still very, very hard for me to believe. Maybe I could imagine a crazy person flipping their **** about that (read: Perlmutter) but any version of 'trying [his] hardest' I can imagine still wouldn't include the kind of micro-managing that would prevent new characters from being created in Spider-Gwen. For Marvel to function as a company at all, which they clearly do to the tune of billions of dollars, there have to be sane people above Perlmutter at Disney, sane people below Perlmutter at Marvel Studios (Feige, D'Esposito et al) Publishing (Dan Buckley to start..) and think how many tiers of functional, sane people that would put between Perlmutter and the first person who knows or cares what happens in an issue of Spider-Gwen. Quesada, Buckley, Alonso, Amanat, Lowe, etc...

For every unknowable caricature of an unhinged exec, there are countless people who yes, love making money, but also must know that
A) there are already not enough days in the year for Marvel Studios to make enough blockbuster hits for the characters they haven't licensed away, let alone the ones they have
B) Sony has already had a hard enough time exploiting the best known IP's they have access to that they've already agreed to share with Marvel
C) if Sony can't handle Spider-Man, how much money do they stand to make off of Venom and Carnage?
--i. Black Cat and Silver Sable?
--ii. Silk, or Alpha?
--iii. a villain or supporting character created in the pages of Spider-Gwen?

Meanwhile, Marvel is still making movie stars out of characters like Star-Lord and Scott Lang, and breakout comic creations stand to benefit publishing immediately while chances of said character making it to a movie in the next 10 years remain small even under the best (i.e. not beleaguered Sony) circumstances.

[vonfaustus]

What you're describing is still very, very hard for me to believe. Maybe I could imagine a crazy person flipping their **** about that (read: Perlmutter) but any version of 'trying [his] hardest' I can imagine still wouldn't include the kind of micro-managing that would prevent new characters from being created in Spider-Gwen. For Marvel to function as a company at all, which they clearly do to the tune of billions of dollars, there have to be sane people above Perlmutter at Disney, sane people below Perlmutter at Marvel Studios (Feige, D'Esposito et al) Publishing (Dan Buckley to start..) and think how many tiers of functional, sane people that would put between Perlmutter and the first person who knows or cares what happens in an issue of Spider-Gwen. Quesada, Buckley, Alonso, Amanat, Lowe, etc...

Oh I'm sure Buckley, Alonso, Breevort, Paniccia, Lowe, etc. who run the publishing division certainly let things "slip through the cracks" like the occasional new character and try they're hardest to keep the books entertaining and fresh. As well as their love for the medium, the security of their jobs depend on that fact. Its a balancing act I'm sure they have to maintain and I certainly do not envy the position they are put in.

...For every unknowable caricature of an unhinged exec, there are countless people who yes, love making money, but also must know that
A) there are already not enough days in the year for Marvel Studios to make enough blockbuster hits for the characters they haven't licensed away, let alone the ones they have
B) Sony has already had a hard enough time exploiting the best known IP's they have access to that they've already agreed to share with Marvel
C) if Sony can't handle Spider-Man, how much money do they stand to make off of Venom and Carnage?
--i. Black Cat and Silver Sable?
--ii. Silk, or Alpha?
--iii. a villain or supporting character created in the pages of Spider-Gwen?...

I don't know about that. Marvel is doing pretty good at moving down the line of characters they have complete control over right now and for the next decade. Just imagine if SONY was more successful with the Spiderman franchise at this point. They could have been working on SILK for a 2017 release and begun mining the books for even more spider-characters! That was their fault and the idiotic involvement of previous said corporate suits who do not know better nor respectful to the heart of these characters.

[thecrimson]

Looks like Newsarama.com clear things up abit...
http://www.newsarama.com/25405-spide...ie-rights.html

Glad it was cleared up.

[Agent Z]

I for one actually think this is more a good thing than a bad one. I mean, the freedom to create new characters is all well and good from a writer's perspective, but from a reader's prospective in a venue like the Marvel Universe where there are probably, like, 10 THOUSAND characters already in the mix? I don't think it's really all that good. Like, CBR not that long ago did this article about where are your favorite characters post-Secret Wars, and I read it and I was actually pretty floored by some of the characters that got left out. Like, I see a book like Yost's New Warriors, and I'm saying to myself... this AGAIN? Young X-Men, New X-Men, Young Avengers, Avengers Initiative, Runaways (there are like probably 10 more of these), it's like they're just coming up with one throw-away character after another with that stuff and it's wearying as a reader.

I'm not saying no new characters ever, but I do think Marvel editorial actually should be a lot faster to put on the breaks for this kind of thing and ask the question: Okay, does this new character actually have something unique and powerful to say to people? Or, can a character we already have do the same thing just as well? Because, otherwise, it's just asking readers to forget about characters they've already invested in and go on to something else. I think the re-imagined tact that was mentioned is actually a better way to go. I'd much rather read about a re-imagined Luke Cage, than a new character myself.

The thing is Spider-Gwen is an AU title. There's no reason for Gwen's supporting cast to be entirely composed of the same people as 616 Peter.

[Kurtzberg]

Wasn't the title already in the top ten?

It debuted as a top three, but shed about a substantial (100,000+) number of units by the next issue (which is the norm) and was outside the top ten by issue #3, issue #5 had to down to 20th or so I believe. I'm sure the the post-Secret Wars relaunch? (is that what they're doing?) will give it a bump, but I don't think it will find it's settling point as a top ten book or that was ever really a realistic goal, with the Batman/JL/Spider-Man/Star Wars/Latest Crossover kind of stuff events eating up those spots.