TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Fans, Writers and Editors

Go To

Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#1: Nov 11th 2011 at 7:18:17 AM

This is a subject I keep seeing coming up in other threads, so I thought I'd give it its own so it wouldn't derail them.

There seems to be a difference in the visions of comic book fans, writers, and editors on how comics should be written that often leads to much argument.

Some fans feel that writers should be free to do whatever they want, assuming this will ensure good quality and/or because that's what comics are for in the first place, to let authors express themselves.

Some writers share that belief. Some even feel like they "own" the characters they create, either literally or in more loose sense, and bitch a lot if things aren't done their way or the characters are later changed into something different.

And editors sometimes act as if they were the ones who decide every little detail of a character's life and neither writers nor fans have a right to complain.

Who is right here? In my opinion:

Obviously, editors are the ones in charge, since the company they work for owns the characters. They have final say on anything, and as much as it might bug us, our only choice if we don't like their decisions is to buy some other comic.

..Which of course, is exactly what the company does NOT want us to do. They want our money. (Though damn if sometimes they act like they don't care. No wonder some people think comic books are actually a Loss Leader these days.)

IF an editor wants a comic to sell, he'd better put out what *the fans* want to read. He should pick a set of creators that he/she feels will provide just that. Then he should just let them be as creative as they can- HOWEVER, the important decisions (such as which characters can be killed off) should always be determined by the company. Remember, writers are freelancers- they come and go, but the company is stuck with what they write unless they want to retcon the character.

Writers should always be aware that when they work for someone else, they are using their toys and should put them back when done. Which doesn't mean their visions should be curtailed. Instead, editors who see a proposal they think will sell but cannot be used for some reason (too controversial, has long-range ramifications for other characters etc.) should offer the writer to publish it as a special project (graphic novel, miniseries etc.) set outside continuity.

Writers should understand this fact and either ask for such deals, or just self-publish their own stories if they want to retain control of their creations.

And the fans should be aware of these facts instead of blindingly assuming the Writer is always Right and The Editor isn't.

Thoughts?

RalphCrown Short Hair from Next Door to Nowhere Since: Oct, 2010
Short Hair
#2: Nov 11th 2011 at 4:34:58 PM

With the classic business model of comics, there will always be tension between writers and editors. Basically, the writers are employees. The characters they use are assets that belong to the company, like a car or a pizza or a piece of software. Consumers come to expect a certain experience from that asset. They will tolerate some change, but not too much (anyone remember New Coke?). One part of the editor's job is to monitor the amount of change and to guess whether it will harm the asset's marketability in the future. A good writer's instinct is to change the character over time, because that will make the character more believable. Hence the tension.

Unlike with pizza, a comics firm can't change the recipe and try it out on focus groups. Writing and art are subjective endeavors. Some fans will hate a particular change and stop buying a title, some will love the same change and tell their friends. In the final analysis, though, the company doesn't care about fans. Dizney doesn't care if you enjoy the latest issue of Deadpool, they only care that you bought it. They pay the writers and editors to produce a quality product, yes, but only because a product with less perceived quality would bring in less income. That is how business works.

Other business models are left for other tropers to elucidate.

edited 11th Nov '11 4:35:55 PM by RalphCrown

Under World. It rocks!
Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#3: Nov 12th 2011 at 6:46:34 AM

[up]That is also completely true.

One thing that has always bothered me is: what kind of Market Research do comics companies do? Because nearly all of the time what I hear is "This title is selling well so we make spinoffs, this one isn't so we cancel it". Except you can't judge quality just based on sales. They doesn't tell you why a character failed to sell in his or her own series and thus what you need to fix to sell him. Instead it seems like they do it mostly by trial-and-error (possibly based on treatises from writers) which doesn't seem the best way to do it and in fact often leads to bizarre changes eg. Aquaman with a hook, Hawkman as a god etc.

You'd think that, since we live in the Internet Era, the company would do research on what fans are saying online. However the reactions I often hear is "we can't depend on that because the fans who actually bother to comment are but a small fraction of those who actually buy the comics." True, but then again, that IS still representative data (isn't the Nielsen Ratings for TV shows also based on a selected fraction of the audience?)

Another way would be to send questionnaires (online ones these days) to retailers to fill, asking what their customers have said about the titles they bought. Yet I have never heard of this being done (not about the *content* of the comics anyway.)

One thing is for sure: both writers and editors should remember that the fans are their paying customers and treat them with a little more respect when some issue comes up. Can you imagine other types of businesses saying to their customers "You don't like how we make our product now? Too bad, don't buy it"?

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#4: Nov 12th 2011 at 7:19:21 AM

Okay, the Scott Pilgrim movie is a perfect reason why listening to fan demand, and using that as an indicator of what fans want (and will pay for) is a bad thing. Before SP was released, fans supported the movie like crazy. The amount of hype the movie generated was unbelievable, and both the comics creators and the movie studios were at conventions, giving interviews, and doing all sorts of promotional work in order to push the movie.

Then it came out, and it flopped.

Since then, there have been numerous market theories trying to figure out what went wrong. Some guess that the general consumer was tired of Michael Cera. Some speculate that the hipster culture isolated the crowds older or younger than the 15 to 25-year-olds the movie was marketed towards. Some speculate that the videogame-esque self-awareness confused viewers. And finally, some people just guess that you can't trust what fans say they'll do. Also, most fan reactions tend to be knee-jerk; you do even the slightest thing people don't like, and they'll hop onto a forum to complain about it—LOUDLY.

When you mentioned the three sides (editors, writers and fans), you missed one group: the marketers. Marketers are the ones who conduct the research (reading comments, watching sales trends, seeing how competitors are doing, doing opinion polls, etc.) and ultimately draw up the plan for what the editors must do. Nine times out of ten, anything advocated by an editor was either suggested or ordered by the marketing/executive office. The editor's job is then to make the rest of his staff figure out how to pull it off.

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#5: Nov 12th 2011 at 2:02:02 PM

The fans, writers, and editors each have different views of how comics should go, but the main point for comics, as with all media, is to make money.

Giving fans what they want can lead to Pandering to the Base which could lead to lower quality output and losing out on profits that could be made by new readers.

Giving writers what they want is called Protection from Editors which could lead to a lower quality output and lead to losing the fanbase and not gaining many new readers.

Giving editors what they want would allow Executive Meddling which could lead to a lower quality output and lead to losing the fanbase and not gaining many new readers as well as peeving off the writers.

Moderation between giving the writers freedom, pleasing both fans and possible newcomers, and letting editors make sure the stories are consistent is key to success.

edited 12th Nov '11 2:04:18 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#6: Nov 12th 2011 at 4:23:51 PM

[up]Thank you for saving me the trouble of doing all the potholing.

[up][up]By "editors" I tend to mean "everyone in the company" (except freelance writers) including Market people. I know that isn't 100% accurate but its easier to say. And definitely, the higher-ups have a role to play, Warner Brothers in particular had a huge disconnect with what their comics branch was doing, a situation they are only trying to remedy recently (mostly because Marvel is kicking their butts in the movie market, Batman franchise excepted.)

Also I think Pilgrim failed for the same reason that most comics-to-movies do- they failed to make it to appeal to a public beyond just the strip's fans. Seriously, how many people had even heard of the character before? Not to mention that switching from cartoons to live action always requires changes, rarely is a 100% straight adaptation successful.

I will agree that people do not always really know what they want, but at least that's data that can be studied instead of the let's-see-what-sticks approach. I know for a fact that no one asked *me* if I wanted a gorier DC Universe.

Also, in my decades-long experience as a comics consumer, the vast majority of the comic-affecting decisions are made during editorial meetings, not "from above" except in the case of iconic properties eg. Superman. Or so they claim anyway. Marvel in particular makes a big deal of how they meet with their writers to plan things in the long range (which may be true given stuff like the sequence of events from the breakup of The Avengers to Civil War to Siege.) DC could use something like that (their planning seems to be limited "The Next Big Event Series" with everyone else trying to fit in as they can.

edited 12th Nov '11 4:29:09 PM by Sijo

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#7: Nov 12th 2011 at 6:13:39 PM

Also I think Pilgrim failed for the same reason that most comics-to-movies do- they failed to make it to appeal to a public beyond just the strip's fans. Seriously, how many people had even heard of the character before?

Even if that's true, I recall reading that if the number of fans and people who were hyped for the movie before its release had actually bought tickets to see it, the movie still would have done better. The initial support for the film from the comics community was massive. You have to remember, they went to conventions hyping this thing—it wasn't just the Scott Pilgrim fans that were supporting it.

You also have to remember that the people the movie was marketed to are also likely the types that would download the torrent rather than pay to see it. Hell, I saw the movie because my friend had the torrent and invited me over to watch it with him and his brother. That was at least three tickets that went unpurchased. And they loved the movie.

Also, in my decades-long experience as a comics consumer, the vast majority of the comic-affecting decisions are made during editorial meetings, not "from above" except in the case of iconic properties eg. Superman. Or so they claim anyway.

I guarantee you that with companies as big as DC or Marvel, that is HIGHLY unlikely. In large corporations, the marketing department controls everything. If marketing says that this is what the company needs to do in order to sell books/merchandise, then they do it. Editors are there only to make it happen and to occasionally clean up other problems as they arise.

I will agree that people do not always really know what they want, but at least that's data that can be studied instead of the let's-see-what-sticks approach. I know for a fact that no one asked *me* if I wanted a gorier DC Universe.

In theory, that could have been an editorial mandate, but still one based on an overall outline from marketing.

I would bet $500 that "The New 52" idea started when DC's marketing department sat down with Didio and a bunch of other execs and told them that sales were declining, or that merchandising was low, or that the market was shrinking (that last one means that, even if you're making more money than ever, you're only making it from the same small groups of people, and that's a bubble just waiting to burst from underneath you). They then told the editors that they needed to find a way to bring in new readers and make comics more accessible. They probably used the current blossoming comic movie genre (with successes like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or The Dark Knight Saga) to indicate how a streamlined universe could do the trick.

The editors probably then went to the writers and told them the plan, with an addendum to ramp up the "flash". More gore. More fanservice. More conflict. Whatever "puts asses in seats". That's the general vibe I got from nearly every #1 and #2 issue: like they wanted to throw as much titillation at me as possible to make me think, "Oh neat!"

Regardless, it call came from the standing order from the guys in marketing. I would be money on it.

edited 12th Nov '11 6:24:53 PM by KingZeal

eX 94. Grandmaster of Shark Since: Jan, 2001
94. Grandmaster of Shark
#8: Nov 13th 2011 at 3:34:34 AM

For fan influence, I'd even go further and say: Never listen to the fans.

At least when you use the origin of the term, for people who are somewhat obsessed with the work in question, not as people who like it in general.

And don't get me wrong, I don't mean you should ignore the already existing canon, but writers should use it because it makes for a good story, not because it appeals to the fans. Fans normally have a very specific idea about what the story in question should be like and tend to shun everything the steers in a slightly different direction. But at the same time, they are only representing a rather small part of the audience, so listing to them means modeling your story towards a minority.

The other thing is that online organized fandom is a complete circle-jerk, meaning that really dumb ideas are recycled until the completely propel out of proportion, i.e the combination of any two nerd icons is deemed "awesome", even they have nothing to do with each other.

Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#9: Nov 13th 2011 at 6:44:34 AM

[up][up] Digital piracy is killing movie-going, sadly, but that's a separate issue.

On the subject of DC's choices: I agree completely that the New reboot came about as a result of the reshuffling that put Johns and Lee in control, which as I mentioned came about when Warner Brothers finally took interest in their comics. But before that, there hardly was any attention paid, and I'm basing this on comments from people who have worked for DC. The fact they moved the HQ of DC from New York to LA was probably done to keep an better eye on them. Besides, I have a hard time believing that the higher ups would have approved stories like the one where Wendy and Marvin (who, due to having been part of the Super Friends TV show, were a part of a lot of people's childhoods, not just comics fans') got eaten alive by their own dog. It's just not good publicity from a mainstream public POV.

Another example was Blue Beetle: here was a character who, thanks to Batman The Brave And The Bold was getting more exposure than most other third-tier DC characters, and had great toy tie-in potential; and his series was loved by fans and critics. However because of low sales, it was canceled. Yet, the (female) Manhunter, a very family-unfriendly title starring a character that no one has ever heard of outside comics circles, was specifically spared from cancellation more than once, despite terrible sales, though ultimately it could not be saved. There's definitely bias at the editor level seen here.

About the relaunch, I agree that it was mainly done because people felt that comics are doomed and they need to convert to online ASAP. There's a few of things about it that don't make much sense to me, though, even from a business point of view: for starters, making their comics available by download right away instead of some time later doesn't make much sense (it's kind of like selling the DVD of the movie while it is still playing on theaters) unless DC HAS given up entirely on the print version readers and just doesn't want to come out and say it.

Additionally, many of the characters who got their own series either had a history of being unable to hold them (Hawkman) are rather obscure (Resurrection Man) or are brand new (Batwing.) I think what happened was that DC, as I mentioned above is still thinking in more 'Big Event' term than in actual story content. They may have thought "We need another big thing like when we did the Fifty Two event! Hey, that's it! Let's make ANOTHER 52, except instead of selling 52 issues in a year, we'll sell 52 issues IN ONE MONTH! Never mind which ones, just publish something!!" (The fact they already announced a collection OF ALL 52 ISSUES which will go for like a hundred bucks, tells me this was the case.)

edited 13th Nov '11 7:04:08 AM by Sijo

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#10: Nov 13th 2011 at 4:18:41 PM

Having comics available for download right away makes a lot of sense. Movies can still be a theater-going experience, and the resurgence of 3D films is directly a result of trying to avoid the "wait for the DVD" mentality. Even still, movies are available on home video much faster these days than in the past (Captain America is already on DVD/Blu Ray, despite having debuted about three months ago) because the longer you wait, the more time you give people to download it because they want the movie NAO.

With comics though, it doesn't matter where you buy the book or where you read it. In fact, it makes sense to put it on digital because that way, people can download the book during their coffee/lunch breaks at work (which is what I do, incidentally) and have them immediately, rather than having to take the time to visit their local comics shop.

Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#11: Nov 13th 2011 at 5:10:25 PM

Oh I agree. As much as I prefer the actual comic books to the virtual ones, I admit that print is going to die (or at least many people believe so) and moving to online is only logical for DC. But they should transition it- progressively add online distribution while canceling the print versions- not compete against themselves from the start; again, even DVDs don't come out on the same day as the movie *yet*. But I guess the current DC administration just doesn't have that kind of subtlety, just as they apparently think they'll hook the online audience with in-your-face gore and sexuality. (Again: how are they doing their research? If they want to expand their clientele *as they claim they are* why aren't they going for more variety instead of doing the same juvenile stuff only more so?)

edited 13th Nov '11 5:12:40 PM by Sijo

RalphCrown Short Hair from Next Door to Nowhere Since: Oct, 2010
Short Hair
#12: Nov 14th 2011 at 8:53:47 AM

Just for an example, let's look at the "new" characters Dizney is putting out these days.

  • "Fairies" franchise with reboot of Tinker Bell (1904), she talks now
  • "Princesses" franchise with Snow White (1937), Cinderella (1950), Sleeping Beauty (1959), etc., all based on figures from folklore, thus centuries old
Their new franchises come from Pixar. So how much research are they going to do for new Marvel characters? I'd guess, not much. I'd also guess that, no matter how much they claim otherwise, they'll eventually start to sanitize Marvel to make it kid-friendly, and they'll ruin everything that the hard-core fans value.

Under World. It rocks!
eX 94. Grandmaster of Shark Since: Jan, 2001
94. Grandmaster of Shark
#13: Nov 14th 2011 at 9:58:15 AM

... ?

Sorry, but you completely misunderstand how companies work. Disney bought Marvel primary for the rights, not fumble with the creative direction and editorial decisions of the single comics.

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#14: Nov 14th 2011 at 1:50:16 PM

The relationship between the three? That's easy. Fans like the product, if they like it enough they buy the product.

Writers create the product or at least plot it. It is their job to then write the best plot they can to bring in fans.

Editors correct mistakes and filter out what they think are bad ideas. This is so fans don't have to stumble through spelling mistakes or worry about inconsistencies.

That's how the relationship should be of course. How it should not be is editors telling people what to write. No, you edit, if you want to plot then do it yourself. The fans obligation is not to do anything illegal.(don't make death threats or steal what you could have bought). Out of the zillions of fan suggestions made to Stan Lee about Spider-man "don't let him grow up" was about the only one he listened to. And then Spider-man grew up anyway. If a fan suggestion sounds good then go for it. If it will make the requester happy but sounds like a bad idea don't do it, it is likely a bad idea. Few fans are writers themselves.

If the fans point out an error however you should probably acknowledge it. That kind of thing is usually helpful, even when the message is full of insulting remarks. Insulting your mother isn't really necessary but you failed to accurately portray Syria regardless.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#15: Nov 14th 2011 at 5:34:26 PM

[up][up] While Disney could muck around with Marvel if they wanted, I doubt they will because they learned (the hard way) that stifling creativity for business-minded choices is not a good idea, when Pixar stole their thunder with all-new creations while they were just making direct-to-DVD sequels to their old successes.

That said, there's plenty of Disney material to be adapted in comic form (The Incredibles for example) and also plenty of Marvel stuff that could be animated (ex. Power Pack.) Both should just resist the urge to mess with successful formulas.

TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#16: Nov 15th 2011 at 4:46:18 AM

Well, see, I've noticed how editors tend to be portrayed like Those Wacky Nazis, if half the things said about them are anything to go by. However, I've also noticed that editors sometimes fail to do what they are supposed to do. Take the Hawkman character. This character defines the Continuity Snarl. Thanks to a group of diverse writers, Hawkman essentially became four different characters that are supposed to be one and the same! The fans are unable to figure out which parts of the character are official and which are not. The editors should never have let that situation occur in the first place. The fact that it did happen shows that something went wrong somewhere. What do you think?

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#17: Nov 15th 2011 at 5:42:55 AM

How it should not be is editors telling people what to write. No, you edit, if you want to plot then do it yourself.

As a general rule, I agree, but there are times when an editor has to step in and say "Put this in, take this out" because the point of the editor is to see beyond just that individual book/story and consider the entire mythos/company. An editor's job isn't only text editing.

The editors should never have let that situation occur in the first place. The fact that it did happen shows that something went wrong somewhere. What do you think?

People make mistakes.

edited 15th Nov '11 5:45:35 AM by KingZeal

Sijo from Puerto Rico Since: Jan, 2001
#18: Nov 15th 2011 at 2:45:53 PM

[up]Of course they do. But when they keep making mistakes, you fire them and hire someone else.

It should be noted though that DC Comics has had a long history of poor editorship. Back during the Silver Age, each character franchise was run as if nobody was paying attention to what the others were doing (which is why there were like three incompatible versions of Atlantis).

To be fair back then comics were gimmick-driven more than story driven. But then during the bronze age, the rivalries started to get nasty eg. The Superman people didn't want to cross over with the Batman ones, it got to the point the Justice League found itself losing many of its major heroes because the other titles didn't want to share them. And then there was the incident between Marv Wolfman and Roy Thomas over whether the later could continue using Pre Crisis references or not in his stories, and of course, the fact nobody noticed how conflicting the new versions of the Post Crisis characters would turn out to be eg. Hawkman's origin, etc.

This seems to because DC has always ran like a fiefdom, with group editors having too much control, while (for example) Marvel was founded as an organic universe from the start and the group of editors (AKA as Stan Lee's Bullpen) got along together better and continued that tradition later (aside from the occasional friction eg. Jim Shooter or Joe Quesada.)

TiggersAreGreat Since: Mar, 2011
#19: Nov 23rd 2011 at 5:30:43 PM

Here's an interesting example of interactions between fan, writers and editors, brought to you by Wikipedia:

Critical reception of the "One Year Later" storyline was mixed. In general, the portrayal of Tim Drake was praised, whereas Cassandra's depiction was not. Upon being asked if Cassandra's characterization was editorially mandated, writer Adam Beechen stated, "When I came to the book, I was told that the first arc would deal with presenting Cassandra as a major new enemy for Robin. From there, I worked out the details of just how that would come about with our initial editor, Eddie Berganza, and then his successor, Peter Tomasi." In a follow-up interview, he clarified further, stating, "They didn't present me with a rationale as to why Cassandra was going to change, or a motivating factor. That was left for me to come up with and them to approve. And we did that. But as far as to why the editors and writers and whoever else made the decision decided that was a good direction, I honestly couldn't answer."

In recent interviews and press conferences, Dan Didio and others have stated that Cass will "be going back to basics," as in her early adventures before she was able to talk. Later, Geoff Johns was quoted as saying, "We will be addressing in Teen Titans exactly what the deal is with her. Is she a bad guy? How? Why? She was a completely different character before 'One Year Later,' so let’s find out what happened."

According to Wizard Magazine #182, the storyline was "one of the most controversial changes to come out of DC's 'One Year Later' event," and "fans rose up in arms, organizing websites and letter-writing campaigns to protest the change." Dan Didio commented, "I'm glad to see there was a reaction created, it shows that people care about the character and want to see something happen with her."

If the writer is telling the truth, then Cassandra Cain being made into a Dragon Lady was not his idea, but rather something he did on the editor's orders. This would mean that the poor guy is being Mis-blamed. I've also heard that fans were bemoaning the fact that the same writer was doing the character's story after she went through Character Rerailment. But if it wasn't his idea to put Cain through Character Derailment to begin, then wouldn't that mean that he was being given a chance to redeem himself? The writer is certainly right about one thing: it's hard to say why the editors thought the whole Character Derailment thing was a good idea to begin with. Of course, Didio's comments make it sound like the whole thing was some sort of publicity stunt to see if people even cared about the character.

It's just too bad the whole thing was rendered moot with Flashpoint, The New 52 turning her into a Brother Chuck. sad

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
Add Post

Total posts: 19
Top