What do creators "owe" fans?

[RadConsv]

Hi everyone!

I saw Natalie Merchant last night and it got me thinking about comics and creator responsibilites.

Natalies recent albulm Leave Your Sleep is a collection of classic poetry set to music. (for a sample click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7b0UqwuF84 ) It is a pretty interesting departure from the days of songs like Wonder and Carnival!

Anyway, Natalie spent about 90 minutes playing ONLY songs from her new CD (accompianed with a powerpoint style presentation about who the poet was, etc.) anyway I am sure there were several "fans" in attendance who were pissed because she was not playing her classic hits. Some fans being so pissed as to obnoxiously yell out random song titles during her performance.

After 90 minutes natalie said she was going to perform one more song, and left the stage. About 15 - 25% of the crowd left. She came out for an encore and played about 90 additional minutes (a 3 hour concert!) of her "classic" songs including some old 10,000 Maniacs songs.

This got me thinking what do creators "owe" fans? For example, does Natalie "owe" her fans the classic hits? Applying similar logic to comics, does a creator "owe" the fans to keep a character or a title in a similar vain / structure? I have recently returned to comics and I can't think of a character who has radically changed since I left 20 years or so ago. (I am sure there are many characters who have changed dramatically, I just cant think of any).

In general I think the creators "owe' nothing to the fans. They are creators and can do whatever they want with thier creation. If we don't like thier creation we can ignore it, blog about it, etc.

However, when it comes to comics specifically, I do think the writers who are handling someone elses creation DO owe the ORIGINAL CREATOR something. Though, I am not exactly sure how to quantify "it" or what "it" is or than to say respect the work.

Just curious what you guys think creators "owe" fans.

[spid]

I think there is a difference between what creators "owe" fans depending on what they are working on. If a creator is working on their own creator owned project then they have every right to take the character/title in any direction they choose. If the creator is working for the big two then the creator has tailor their work to fit the property. Chances are more people are picking up the issue for the property over the creator.

If I change the channel to the Food Network I would expect the show I am watching is going to talk about food. If they start talking about the weather I am going to be annoyed.

[Burrell]

"Owe" is a strong word.

But, if you are an entertainer, there is an unwritten contract that you entertain your audience, whether it be comics or music. If the audience is not entertained, they will not be back for more. It almost sounds like Natalie tricked the audience to weed out the people that annoyed her, then gave the traditional concert to her "real fans." That seems kind of crappy to me. While the fans may have been obnoxious, were they expecting a traditional concert? How was it advertised and promoted? Anyway, she's guaranteed that many of those people will never go to another concert of hers. Same with comic creators. If they don't entertain, they will lose their audience.

If these artists/performers are financially stable enough to create art for themselves, then good for them. But if they do not produce something that is commercially entertaining/viable, they shouldn't expect a financial windfall or complain if their books/cds/etc do not sell well.

[BobBretall]

I think what creators "owe" fans is different from what publishers "owe" fans. (And "owe", as Burrell points out) is a strong word for comics creators.

I draw the distinction because if it's a creator-owned book, the creators can do whatever they please and fans can either stay on board or go elsewhere.

For a publisher-owned book, the creators really need to toe the line and do what is OK with the publisher, who are the owners/stewards of the characters. Publishers tend to do whatever they think will make them the most $$, regardless of any sense of debt to their fan-base.

A perfect example of this is the current 180-degree change in direction on both Superman & Wonder Woman at DC comics in the story arcs by J Michael Stracyzinski.

In this case, what does JMS "owe" fans? Pretty much nothing. He is telling stories he hopes are entertaining, but at the end of the day, his contract is with DC. I absolutely despise the new direction, but JMS owes me nothing, and I have chosen to vote with my wallet and abandon bot titles.

What does DC "owe" me. Again, nothing. They made the change (I assume) because they thought it would make them more money on the long run. Time will tell, and if sales go up & stay up, then they will have been right. If they don't then they will change yet again.

The real difference here is that I can kind of know what I'm going to get before I buy if I read about the story on the internet, or browse the book in the shop. I can buy an issue and am "out" $4 or $5 if I don't like it.

Back to your musical artist example, I think a band has a different obligation to fans, who often pay $100+ for tickets to a concert and have a certain expectation to hear some of their favorite songs. I have frequently been to concerts where the bands try to hype their new album by playing mostly new stuff and being kind of stingy on the classics. In this case, I can understand a bit more upset on the part of the fans who laid out a considerable wad of cash with a certain expectation. What might be appropriate is advertising the concert as "Featuring all the songs from XXXX's new album!" but they typically will not do this for fear of selling fewer tickets, so they leave a certain expectation that they should meet. Personally, I think alternating a few classic songs in among the new throughout is the proper way to go.

[Wood]

Creators owe fans nothing directly. But if they choose not to deliver what the fans deserve and want, they won't be creators for long. Creators that work for hire for other publishers owe the publishers their best efforts. And if someone is self publishing, they only owe it to themselves and anyone they're contracting out to help on the book.

[torchsong]

The best authority as far as musical acts go, for my money, is KISS's Gene Simmons. Every concert is a performance review from "The Boss" (ie. their fans). Sure, they play the new stuff, but they know that people paid good money to hear "Rock n Roll All Nite" and so, even if it's for the umpteen-thousandth time, they play it. These are roughly his words on how he sees it, not mine.

Do they "OWE" their fans anything? Of course not, but they also realize that without their fans (patrons, etc.), they would likely not be touring the world, making dough off albums, merchandise, coffins, etc.

And the same can be fundamentally true of any creative endeavor, even comics. At the end of the day all I'm "owed" from Marvel/DC/gg Studios/insert your fave here is a comic book. All I owe them as a fan/patron is to buy or not buy it.

[RadConsv]

I agree "owe" is a strong word but I can't think of a differnet one

I think Bob hit on the head when he said that creators working for publisher owned titles are only indebted (for lack of a better word) to the publishing house.

I really wonder what creators think of other creators. What does Stan Lee really think of the whole spider totem thing or the clone saga? What does Liefeld think of all the iterations of Deadpool?

I knew if I created a character and then someone else radically changed into something I didn't like I would be pissed. Then again I can't really think of any character that has been really radically changed that stuck.

[BobBretall]

What does Stan Lee really think of the whole spider totem thing or the clone saga?

Stan does not read any of these comics, so it saves him the frustration. I'm not sure he was ever a comics reader, just a writer, which is different from many modern writers who started out as fan s reading comics.

That said, just like Bendis (who never has a non-complimentary thing to say about Marvel), I'm sure Stan would never "Bite the hand that feeds him" and let fly any negative feelings about work Marvel is doing.

When asked, he deflects the questions by essentially saying he does not read the books but he hears good things.

[torchsong]

I knew if I created a character and then someone else radically changed into something I didn't like I would be pissed. Then again I can't really think of any character that has been really radically changed that stuck.

I think the most recent example of something like you're talking about was the decision to make Shatterstar...a Rob Liefeld creation...a homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Well...there was something wrong with that in Liefeld's eyes, but he didn't own the character anymore and he wasn't on the book. I think in the end you just have to look at it and ask yourself does such a change work? And you don't always, as the creator, get to determine that. Sometimes your fans do. If people like Shatterstar as gay, then it's likely that will stick no matter how much Liefeld protests.

I'm reminded of the Howard the Duck magazine run waaaay back in the early 80s. I remember HtD creator Steve Gerber wasn't pleased with how they handled his character (other people were writing it), but I enjoyed those magazines quite a bit, as they allowed for more mature, more surreal (if you can believe that) storylines for Howard. I'm not sure, but I think those magazines are pretty much reviled by the fan-community at large, but I loved 'em.

So the fans DO play a role somewhat in determining the "quality" (note the quotes) of what you create. Somewhere out there there's a KISS fan who likes "Music from the Elder" I'm sure!

[neenjah]

I listen to "A World Without Heroes" and "I" from time to time.

I think you only owe the fans and yourself the best that you can do- don't promise more than you can deliver and always deliver more than you promised...and hit your deadlines!

And to be nice- even if you don't feel lie it.

Being appreciative and polite on both sides of the table is a good thing.

Lin