As Comic Fan, Do You Follow Specific Characters, or Specific Creators?

[Zac Goyette]

I am a little of both. I will always follow the X-Men, Daredevil, Captain America, and Spider-Man. I will also follow creators like Bendis, Fraction, Brubaker, and Slott regardless of what book they are writing.

[ZombieSpeedball]

A little bit of both. Ever since Teen Titans and The Outsiders started new series' stemming from Titans/Young Justice crossover, I've been following both teams kind of religiously, despite whoever is working on it. At the same time, I'll often follow some writers (like Bendis, Vaughn, etc.) from book to book.

[Fake Pat]

Creators.

Following characters is silly. Characters can't have any sort of quality on their own.

[Masculine Todd]

Creators, though I do have a fondness for Batman that dictates I read at least one of his ongoings at a time.

[Masculine Todd]

Following characters is silly. Characters can't have any sort of quality on their own.

They do have certain proclivities and charater traits established by past talents that are expounded on from creator to creator that make a character desirable to the consumer. I can empathize with character following. There's nothing inherently silly about it, if that's what you want.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

Creators, though there are a few characters that I'll almost always check out when there's a new creative team, unless I can't stand the writer.

(Superman and Flash, off the top of my head)

[Pick The System!]

Creators. Following characters can really rack up an immense bill after a while and besides, you can wind up getting books that you'd never buy otherwise, like Spiderman/Red Sonja or Transformers/New Avengers.

Sometimes I like a book a lot and stay with it through several teams, but that's rare anymore.

[Treacle]

I pick up all of David Mack's work and all of the Luna Brothers' work.

I pick up creator owned titles as well if I like them, such as Terry Moore's Echo.

But other than that, not really.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

They do have certain proclivities and charater traits established by past talents that are expounded on from creator to creator that make a character desirable to the consumer. I can empathize with character following. There's nothing inherently silly about it, if that's what you want.

Yep. Most of the good from Johns' run on Flash was taken from Waid's.

[Generic Poster]

Creators.

Following characters is silly. Characters can't have any sort of quality on their own.

Yeah. That's why I only watch episodes of a TV show that are written by specific writers.

[RegularJoe]

i follow the bat-family (much to my chagrin the last couple years...) but otherwise creators.

[Jef UK]

I won't stick with a character I like if I'm not enjoying the work of the talent involved, but I get excited about specific creators working on specific characters. All said, I follow writers more than anything, and hope for the best as regards an artist on any given project.

[schizorabbit]

Creators.

1) Jason Aaron, for example--he could write a creator owned comic book about a talking paper bag, and I would blind-buy it, already knowing that the talking paper bag would be a badass paper bag in a gritty story that had dirt and blood under its nails.

2) Alan Moore. I'm in the middle of a documentary where he wears those crazy metal finger things for God-knows-why (pickin' boogers?) and he may be anti-American batshit crazy, but he's amazingly mind-blowingly awesome and articulate batshit crazy.

3) Warren Ellis. Another anti-American. I would like to slip him a hit of acid...and then hear what crazy ideas he comes up with.

[Zac Goyette]

Creators.

Following characters is silly. Characters can't have any sort of quality on their own.

Characters do have quality of the own. They wouldn't have the ability to last in some cases 70 years if they didn't.

[Fake Pat]

Characters do have quality of the own. They wouldn't have the ability to last in some cases 70 years if they didn't.

No, they don't.

They last because of the work creators do with them.

[EdNEMO]

Creators. I will give new creative teams on books I like but they need to wow me pretty fast.

[Busman]

Mostly creators. But not exclusively.

[Pat Loika]

I follow both. I discover new characters following creators, and I discover new creators when they work on characters that I like.

P.

[Zac Goyette]

No, they don't.

They last because of the work creators do with them.

The core qualities of the characters do not change over the years. They do evolve, but overall don't change a great deal. People are attracted to certain characters based on their qualities, which includes creators. I have many articles where the writer of a book says that the characters dictate the direction of the story. That couldn't happen if the characters didn't have qualites of their own.

[ZombieSpeedball]

I follow both. I discover new characters following creators, and I discover new creators when they work on characters that I like.

P.

That's really a good way of describing it.

[sonnylarue]

both, but if the run isn't my cup of tea, i'll drop the book regardless of creator or character.

[Zac Goyette]

I follow both. I discover new characters following creators, and I discover new creators when they work on characters that I like.

P.

Couldn't agree more!

[Fake Pat]

The core qualities of the characters do not change over the years. They do evolve, but overall don't change a great deal. People are attracted to certain characters based on their qualities, which includes creators. I have many articles where the writer of a book says that the characters dictate the direction of the story. That couldn't happen if the characters didn't have qualites of their own.

And where do those qualities come from?

[Kedd]

I mostly follow creators, but they're are some characters that I will follow into the depths of hell. I'm looking at you Cloak and Dagger.

[Sy-Klone]

Creators, though there are a few characters that I'll almost always check out when there's a new creative team, unless I can't stand the writer.

(Superman and Flash, off the top of my head)

This sums me up. There are characters that I'm more inclined to sample than others (Spider-Man, Flash, Superman, Batman), but I won't buy a book if the creative team doesn't do anything for me.

[Artie Pink]

Characters do have quality of the own. They wouldn't have the ability to last in some cases 70 years if they didn't.


Then why isn't Batman any good when Winnick writes him? Or Superman, when Chuck Austen wrote him? Or Spidey, when Howard Mackie wrote him?

[Fake Pat]

Then why isn't Batman any good when Winnick writes him? Or Superman, when Chuck Austen wrote him? Or Spidey, when Howard Mackie wrote him?

That's why you're my pal.

:thumb:

[Artie Pink]

That's why you're my pal.

:thumb:


:lol: Right back atcha! I almost threw Scott Kolins in, too!

[ZombieSpeedball]

I mostly follow creators, but they're are some characters that I will follow into the depths of hell. I'm looking at you Cloak and Dagger.

Speaking of, where the hell is that book we were promised?

[Big Coffin Hunter]

I'm definitely a creator follower. Rucka, Aaron, Ellis, Gaiman, Mignola, Powell, and Wood I will follow just about anywhere.
The only characters I think I would follow are Hellboy/BPRD and The Goon.

[dnk]

No, they don't.

They last because of the work creators do with them.


Yeah. That's why I only watch episodes of a TV show that are written by specific writers.

I agree with Generic Poster here.


And where do those qualities come from?

From the first creator (or whoever initially gave them it). But the real, core qualities we associate with the characters remain. The Spidey braintrust and the current writers didn't create Spider-Man's sense of responsibility, but you're sure as hell going to see it used. Morrison didn't write Batman's origin, but he uses that and what we expect of Bruce Wayne/Batman, the character, to tell a story.

We expect characters to behave a certain way. Creators play a large role in the story told, but you can't say that characters are blank slates. You don't write a Superman story where Clark Kent kills everything because he wants to of his own free will.

EDIT: Not to say I follow characters. For the MOST part, I follow creators. But I don't see the logic of saying that "characters don't have qualities."

[Fake Pat]

EDIT: Not to say I follow characters. For the MOST part, I follow creators. But I don't see the logic of saying that "characters don't have qualities."

My original point was that characters have no inherent "quality" (no such thing as good or bad characters).

Why buy books based on something completely disconnected from that aspect?

[Fake Pat]

From the first creator (or whoever initially gave them it). But the real, core qualities we associate with the characters remain. The Spidey braintrust and the current writers didn't create Spider-Man's sense of responsibility, but you're sure as hell going to see it used. Morrison didn't write Batman's origin, but he uses that and what we expect of Bruce Wayne/Batman, the character, to tell a story.

Last time I checked there were many people recently arguing whether or not Spidey or Batman still had their core qualities.

[dnk]

My original point was that characters have no inherent "quality" (no such thing as good or bad characters).

Why buy books based on something completely disconnected from that aspect?

I think Batman is a lot of people's favorite character because he is "realistic" in that he supposedly has no superpowers. So that is a reason a lot of people buy Batman books.

A lot of people think of Spider-Man as an "everyman" guy who tries to do what's right regardless of circumstance, and that resonates with a lot of people.

I think nostalgia has a lot to do with it, too.

Overall, I'm a huge proponent of "there's no such thing as a bad character, only bad writers (and artists)." But I do believe that certain characters have built in characteristics that help make telling a compelling story easier and some that make telling a good story more difficult (in which case, that good story is made to look even better).

And I don't buy BATMAN or ASM because of any of these reasons. I'm just trying to present some counterarguments.

[Kedd]

Speaking of, where the hell is that book we were promised?

I only wish I knew. I thought it was supposed to be out last month :(

[Zac Goyette]

Then why isn't Batman any good when Winnick writes him? Or Superman, when Chuck Austen wrote him? Or Spidey, when Howard Mackie wrote him?

I'm not going to comment on what is good and what isn't. When there is a story you don't like, are the character's qualities really any different than when you liked the story? Certain creators understand the voice of certain characters more than others, but they are not changing the qualities of the character, they just understand how to make that character connect with the readers. When Bendis launched Ultimate Spider-Man, he didn't change the qualities of Spider-Man, he just presented them in a fresh way that people were really able to relate to.

[dnk]

Last time I checked there were many people recently arguing whether or not Spidey or Batman still had their core qualities.

That depends on what most people consider core. If you think being married is a "core quality," sure. Personally I don't. Although I don't consider his being single a core attribute either, and I was not a fan of OMD. But this whole BND thing seems like an ATTEMPT by Marvel to get Spider-Man to what they consider core. Burdened by his power, responsibility, and his Parker luck, a bachelor, and a person that cares about his friends and family.

Not sure what you might be alluding to with the Batman thing. Personally, I consider Batman's core to be his origin, his obsession, his resolve, his intellect, his resourcefulness, and a weird oscillation between compassion for mankind and (some might call it) coldness towards individuals.

[AndrewG]

Both. But I tend to give specific creators more of a chance at finding their legs on a title than I do a book with a new creative team.

Bendis, Brubaker, Byrne, Romita Jr, Sim, Rucka, Johns. Those are pretty much the only creators whose work I'll follow regardless of title. I mean hell, I'm reading Star Trek and Angel on a regular basis because of Byrne (never cared for Buffy or Trek).

I will follow specific characters or titles like Spider-Man, Star Wars, Batman, Flash and lately Daredevil but usually if I don't care for the direction of the book I drop it within 2 or 3 issues (except for Spider-Man). I'll give the creators at least 6 issues before making a decision

[Fake Pat]

Here's a little experiment that will hopefully clarify what I'm saying;

1. Think of a character you follow.

2. Think of a writer and an artist whose works you cannot stand.

3. Imagine they were doing a long run on that character's book.

Were you to spend your time and money on a book you were almost sure you would hate, wouldn't you feel that was at least somewhat silly?

[Fake Pat]

That depends on what most people consider core. If you think being married is a "core quality," sure. Personally I don't. Although I don't consider his being single a core attribute either, and I was not a fan of OMD. But this whole BND thing seems like an ATTEMPT by Marvel to get Spider-Man to what they consider core. Burdened by his power, responsibility, and his Parker luck, a bachelor, and a person that cares about his friends and family.

Not sure what you might be alluding to with the Batman thing. Personally, I consider Batman's core to be his origin, his obsession, his resolve, his intellect, his resourcefulness, and a weird oscillation between compassion for mankind and (some might call it) coldness towards individuals.

What he did in FC #6.

And it was more the making a deal with the devil than being married that most seemed to have a problem with.

I didn't, but it was out there a lot.

[Zac Goyette]

Were you to spend your time and money on a book you were almost sure you would hate, wouldn't you feel that was at least somewhat silly?

Have you ever been to Newsarama's message board?;)

[adam_warlock_2099]

The only creator I follow anywhere no matter what is Jim Starlin. Otherwise it's characters.

And characters do have their own qualities. I am reminded of the remade Warlock mini some years back that took a whole different idea to Warlock's conception and intent for being created, but retained the qualities that were originally fleshed out with Stan Lee, Jim Starlin, and Roy Thomas started. It's just like how Mr Bendis took a new angle to Spiderman in Ultimate, but the character remained true to what it started as.

[Fake Pat]

Have you ever been to Newsarama's message board?;)

Exactly my point.

[Fake Pat]

I'm not going to comment on what is good and what isn't. When there is a story you don't like, are the character's qualities really any different than when you liked the story? Certain creators understand the voice of certain characters more than others, but they are not changing the qualities of the character, they just understand how to make that character connect with the readers. When Bendis launched Ultimate Spider-Man, he didn't change the qualities of Spider-Man, he just presented them in a fresh way that people were really able to relate to.

To clarify again, we were talking good/bad quality, not qualities meaning characteristics.

[Fake Pat]

The only creator I follow anywhere no matter what is Jim Starlin. Otherwise it's characters.

And characters do have their own qualities. I am reminded of the remade Warlock mini some years back that took a whole different idea to Warlock's conception and intent for being created, but retained the qualities that were originally fleshed out with Stan Lee, Jim Starlin, and Roy Thomas started. It's just like how Mr Bendis took a new angle to Spiderman in Ultimate, but the character remained true to what it started as.

So if the writer whose work you have hated more than any other writer's work teamed with an artist whose work you have hated more than artist's work to do a Warlock on-going, you'd buy it indefinitely?

[RickLM]

Both.

There are certain writers who cause me to raise an eyebrow, no matter what the book. If I heard that Joss Whedon was doing a series for Archie, I'd actually think about buying.

And certain characters are special. If they relaunch Kamandi with a writer and artist I hate, I'd still take a look and hope that it was decent.

[Zac Goyette]

To clarify again, we were talking good/bad quality, not qualities meaning characteristics.

I know. I am saying that there are certain characters that I will follow even if I don't like a particular story. Story arcs change every four to six issues, and just because I may not like one, doesn't mean I am going to scrap the entire run. I can usually find something I enjoy in parts if I don't enjoy the whole story. I have an affinity to certain characters that keep me coming back; the same goes for certain creators that would entice me to pick up a book about a character I have no interest in just because they are working on it. Pat said it best earlier.

[Yorick Brown]

A little from column A, a little from column B.

[dnk]

Here's a little experiment that will hopefully clarify what I'm saying;

1. Think of a character you follow.

2. Think of a writer and an artist whose works you cannot stand.

3. Imagine they were doing a long run on that character's book.

Were you to spend your time and money on a book you were almost sure you would hate, wouldn't you feel that was at least somewhat silly?

There's a difference between following a favorite character, when you believe you will see at least some character moments that you would enjoy and when you want to see the character's ongoing adventures (for better or for worse), and blindly following a character regardless of creative team. I think your example is too extreme for this particular question.

I'm sure a lot of people are reading books about their favorite character that they never would be if the same creative team was telling the exact same story on another book. I assume sales charts would agree (although I guess there's no "exact same story" example, I think you know what I'm saying).

But if you want me to participate in your experiment, yes, I completely agree, that is very silly, but that's not the thread's question. The thread is asking for a consumer's overall behavior.


What he did in FC #6.

I don't know how you feel about the matter, and I understand, you too are just presenting a counterpoint here, but I can't stand seeing those "Batman shouldn't shoot a gun" things. The sitation: Batman has the means to save the world. There HONESTLY looks to be no conceivable way around it. For all that "there's always another way" thing, it's because Batman the character is a smart guy, and he (and the writer) can conceivably think of another way. This was not the case. Also, it's a ruthless, murderous devil-god, not a two-bit hood in an alley. If Batman had to sacrifice his own personal morals (and maybe salvation, if you're a religious person) to do it, in the long run, I think he's a bigger hero for it. Not doing it would have kind of similar to making a deal with the devil...


And it was more the making a deal with the devil than being married that most seemed to have a problem with.

Potential counterpoint: I think sacrificing his own well-being and happiness for that of a loved one is Spider-Man's most important trait. Also, rinse, repeat what I just said about Batman's sacrifice.

Also, what's your response to:

Overall, I'm a huge proponent of "there's no such thing as a bad character, only bad writers (and artists)." But I do believe that certain characters have built in characteristics that help make telling a compelling story easier and some that make telling a good story more difficult (in which case, that good story is made to look even better).

If that's even relevant anymore, I don't even know anymore. :)

[adam_warlock_2099]

So if the writer whose work you have hated more than any other writer's work teamed with an artist whose work you have hated more than artist's work to do a Warlock on-going, you'd buy it indefinitely?

Well I can't really say there is someone's work I HATE. To me they are all talented by the standards that I can write and draw, I just like/dislike them to varying degrees.

But when it comes to Warlock or Thanos, yes, anything with them in it, I will buy.

[Fake Pat]

Also, what's your response to:
[snip]

I don't think there's anything about any character that makes them more conducive to good or bad stories. There's things about characters that can make them more popular or long-lasting, but that has nothing to do with the quality of works featuring those characters.

How do you reconcile the idea that there's no such thing as a good or bad character with the concept that some characters are more conducive to good or bad stories? Wouldn't those characters have to be good or bad because of that?

[Fake Pat]

Well I can't really say there is someone's work I HATE. To me they are all talented by the standards that I can write and draw, I just like/dislike them to varying degrees.

But when it comes to Warlock or Thanos, yes, anything with them in it, I will buy.

And you don't see why spending your time and money on something you don't like is silly?

[hotdogdownahallway]

By how good the covers look.

[dnk]

I don't think there's anything about any character that makes them more conducive to good or bad stories. There's things about characters that can make them more popular or long-lasting, but that has nothing to do with the quality of works featuring those characters.

How do you reconcile the idea that there's no such thing as a good or bad character with the concept that some characters are more conducive to good or bad stories? Wouldn't those characters have to be good or bad because of that?

Mostly the fact that previous creators have laid fertile groundwork regarding characteristics, motivations, supporting cast, plot threads, etc,. It's a lot harder to come up with a good idea for 3-D Man than for Batman.

EDIT: I'm sure there is a MUCH better example than 3-D Man, who a quick wiki search just shows actually has an interesting genesis ("intended by Thomas as a commentary on contemporary societal themes using 1950s analogues.[1]")

Maybe Blood Thirst (http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/vol/5000/4571/4571-38557-1-superman-the-man-of_400.jpg)?

[adam_warlock_2099]

And you don't see why spending your time and money on something you don't like is silly?

Yes I do, but I guess you would say that I haven't found a work of Warlock or Thanos' yet that I disliked. This is why I say that characters can have qualities of their own that make them likeable dispite the writer or artist.

But normally, yes, once a title is unappealing to me, I stop spending money on it.

[Fake Pat]

Mostly the fact that previous creators have laid fertile groundwork regarding characteristics, motivations, supporting cast, plot threads, etc,. It's a lot harder to come up with a good idea for 3-D Man than for Batman.

Than how is Batman not a better character than 3-D Man?

That claim is incompatible with the claim that there are no good or bad characters.

[Fake Pat]

Yes I do, but I guess you would say that I haven't found a work of Warlock or Thanos' yet that I disliked. This is why I say that characters can have qualities of their own that make them likeable dispite the writer or artist.

But normally, yes, once a title is unappealing to me, I stop spending money on it.

Fair enough.

[dnk]

Than how is Batman not a better character than 3-D Man?

That claim is incompatible with the claim that there are no good or bad characters.

I never said I was a proponent of the "there's no such thing as a good character, only good writers (and artists)." I said "bad." I do believe in "good" characters. I guess it's similar to how no matter how overall terrible a show or something might be, there can be one character or actor that can just completely carry it for a particular viewer/reader.

But I believe good stories can be told about characters who SOME might consider "bad." Hence why I believe the "there's no such thing as a bad character, only bad writers (and artists)." Which is why I said what I did.

[Andy Kuhn]

1) Jason Aaron, for example--he could write a creator owned comic book about a talking paper bag, and I would blind-buy it, already knowing that the talking paper bag would be a badass paper bag in a gritty story that had dirt and blood under its nails.


when is this coming out? i need to preorder. :)

[Zac Goyette]

I think that one can also feed off the other. Certain characters attract better creators. Characters like the X-Men, Spider-Man, and Batman attract and have attracted some of the best talent the business has ever seen. On the other side, because of Bendis (for example), Luke Cage is seeing a level of popularity that he has arguable never seen.

[adam_warlock_2099]

Fair enough.

:thumb:

[Kingsumo]

Lil of both.

There are characters like Nova, and to a much lesser degree Ghost Rider, where I will suffer through a bad writer, because I really enjoy them.

However, there are certain creators (Bendis, Bru, Aaron, Ennis) who I will certainly give a look at new work based on their track record.

[Scotty]

I'd like to say a little of both but to be truthful, it's characters I like. Creators will help me go to a book I normally wouldn't pick up.

[Magnum V.I.]

Both really. But a lot of the time it IS the characters. Especially the X-Men or such.

[Supreme Convoy]

Generally, I follow writers or artists that I really enjoy.

Even though I'm behind in Daredevil, it seems like that's the only character I consistently follow since Marvel Knights' relaunch. That title has a stellar run with great creators.

[Alan(OW)Barnes]

Creators for the most part. But I do read a couple of characters no matter who writes/draws them.

[Master Jack Rabbitt]

Both

[John Drake]

Creators, though there are a few characters that I'll almost always check out when there's a new creative team, unless I can't stand the writer.

Same here.

[jason hissong]

Both. But creators get the edge.

[Donal DeLay]

Creators.

[tim nixon]

a little of both. i follow creators more so, but i love me some xmen and their whoooooooole story...

[ManOfMiracles]

I tend to follow creators:

Moore, Ellis, Morrison, Johns, that Bendis fellow, Ennis.....

[peeplesart]

i tend to follow creators. there are times when i will stay on a book even if they switch creators, as long as i like their work, but most of the time, i am going to buy based on the creator.

[Kman00001]

95% creators, 5% characters. A good/bad creator can make/break any character.

[Kman00001]

Creators. Following characters can really rack up an immense bill after a while and besides, you can wind up getting books that you'd never buy otherwise, like Spiderman/Red Sonja

Huh...I did buy this as a result of following creators. I was following Oeming's work on Red Sonja.

[Ziolko]

Creators.

[The Dean]

I follow both.

If a creator hasn't made you care about a character or what happens next in their story, the creator has failed.

I'll go out of the way to read:
Bendis, Cooke, Allred, Ellis, Robinson, Johns, Kirby, Swan
Fantastic Four, Thing, Captain America, Hawkman, Speedball.

[PeteL]

Creators. Many of the books I read are creator owned, so I guess that helps a lot.

Some characters though - Daredevil, Cap, sometimes Hulk.

[Masculine Todd]

Then why isn't Batman any good when Winnick writes him? Or Superman, when Chuck Austen wrote him? Or Spidey, when Howard Mackie wrote him?

Batman was fantastic when Winick wrote the book and Austen's Superman was mindless fun.

Oh, snap!

[rogerio]

A little bit of both.
Creators:
Rucka, Bendis, Millar, Brubaker, Aaron, Fraction, Diggle, Maleev, Epting, Kordey, Parlov, Crain, Phillips and Deodato.
Characters:
Black Widow.:)

[Generic Poster]

Here's a little experiment that will hopefully clarify what I'm saying;

1. Think of a character you follow.

2. Think of a writer and an artist whose works you cannot stand.

3. Imagine they were doing a long run on that character's book.

Were you to spend your time and money on a book you were almost sure you would hate, wouldn't you feel that was at least somewhat silly?

By this test, I follow creators. However, I am more likely to give an unknown or average writer a shot on a character I like. Similarly, there are certain characters that I can't stand that I won't follow a writer to. For example, I will buy almost anything Brubaker puts out, but my hate of the X-Men prevented me from following him there.