DC image found on google with my caption

Check your local comic book news sites for the details. But it seems that DC Comics made a counter move to the recent big Marvel news.

The biggest possibly being a name change. I’m not sure of the exact details. But it seems that what we call DC Comics, will now be referred to as DC Entertainment.

Also with the name change, it seems that DC Comics will now become more important to Time Warner, and how they see the comic book property they own.

Maybe it’s because Marvel movies are dominating the superhero field. And Time Warner has finally realized they want to exploit the media capability of their characters?

I wonder if this new focus on DC characters by Time Warner will be a good thing? Or will it get in the way of comic creators making good issues?

Paul Levitz, who was the Publisher and President of DC Comics has been reduced to writing comic books again, have an editor role or to consult?

Talk about a demotion. I hope he just leaves DC all together. I’ve heard reports that he has, but can’t say for certain.

I would not blame him for leaving DC Comics all together. And think that is the right move.

But this is a case of what usually happens in the corporate world. Don’t matter how many years you put in a company. At some point they can turn around and show you the door. From what I read, it seems like a clear case of: We’re going another direction and don’t want you anymore now get out.

I really can’t comment about Paul Levitz because he was never a public face for the company. He was never really out their talking about the company. He stayed behind the scenes. But he appears to have been a long term strategy thinker, who knows his stuff.

Diane Nelson, is going to be one of the new big head honchos of the company. Yet her expertise is not comic books. It’s mostly marketing and how to exploit brands.

If she doesn’t know comic books well, or understand how they are run. Will she get in the way of comic creators and books with unrealistic demands?

Overall while the DC news is big. I don’t think it’s nearly as major as the Marvel news.

Basically DC Comics is just restructuring management. And if anything, becoming more corporate. And the only real news besides the name change is Time Warner, their owners are now focusing on their comic property more. Except will this extra focus on comics be a good thing for the DC staff? Or will it make books more difficult to produce? Will their be demands that change content and stories, just to make characters more marketable?

I guess it’s too early to tell which way the company will go now.

Recent movie news is that Megan Fox, actress from the Transformers movie is cast as the new Catwoman in the next Batman film.

At age 23, I think it’s a good choice. She’s one of the few hot actress types out there now who can fit the roll.

I just hope any other villain they plan to use is good. The last thing this next Batman film needs is excess villains.

I think just Catwoman alone is dynamic enough to hold a film. Adding more to the mix can ruin a good film.

Superman image found on google with my caption

I was reading a link and something about DC owning the trademark of the Superman costume? But that the Siegel’s won the copyright and own the costume.

I think there will be a way around the trademark that DC may have.

Still not sure how the costume will exactly play out. But if DC really does lose the rights to the Superman costume, then the character of Superman as we know it in DC is done.

The costume of a superhero is their representation and a visual people expect to see. And Superman in his classic costume is the icon symbol that people associate with the character.

The costume really does mean everything. It is of huge importance, way more then the origin of the character. Because you don’t have to talk about that, the people already know that story and all the details.

I wonder if a case could be made that DC can’t have their Superman with black hair?

I think if the Siegel’s win whatever they get, they would be fools to sell it right back to DC to buy. They should know even if it’s years later, DC will still wait to buy it back. They are going nowhere.

Don’t let DC use the character as they want. Let the DC owners sweat it out a few years and they will be willing to pay more to get the character back.

Better to try a few years in the license and merchandise areas and see how much they could make. Chances are those long term will provide more millions then a one time payment from DC to buy back the property.

It is an interesting case and this is all speculation at this point. When the final case is settled, we will all have to wait and see how it shakes out and who owns what?

I reworked a Batman article to submit on ezine articles and it got rejected as being and I quote: “Your article contains content that is considered slanderous or libel.”

I think it’s a bunch of B.S. I was stating facts and some opinions. Plus I hardly went or crossed that line. Just lookup the news everyday on Democrats / Republicans talk and the harsh language. Or lookup a celebrity name and those who hate them what they say. Well that’s my view on it. I decided to delete the article below because of it, why give it to them?

That’s what’s good about having a blog and your own website. You control the content and write what you like.

========================

Don’t be fooled by the tagline “Batman created by Bob Kane”. This article talks about how Batman was a co-creation. And that Batman co-creator Bob Kane, never gave Batman co-creator Bill Finger his just financial due or recognition. Without Bill Finger there would be no Batman as we know him today.

As you might already know, if you read a Batman comic book now produced by DC Comics. Or look at various Batman media, it says in the credits “Batman created by Bob Kane”. Yet, that is far from the truth.

Researching the history of the character. Batman really was a co-creation and a guy named Bill Finger, who wrote the stories and gave ideas, co-created him. And how much influence did Bill Finger have? Well, without him. There would be NO Batman as we know him today.

And in my opinion Batman, a version only by Bob Kane, would have been a failed concept of a character, long forgotten decades ago as nothing special.

Here is what Bill Finger suggested and helped make in terms of Batman’s creation.

-Finger suggested the colors for his costume. Such as a gray suit. Kane, had a red suit.

-Finger suggested the cowl. Kane had a Zorro type mask covering the eyes only.

-Finger suggested the Scalloped cape. Kane had awkward wings instead.

-Finger named the Bruce Wayne character

-Finger made Batman a detective

-Finger co-created the Batman origin story

-Finger named the city as, Gotham City

-Finger helped co-create Robin, Joker, and a bunch of villains

Reading that list: It sure sounds like a co-creation. In fact, most of the creative ideas that you know of as Batman were Bill Finger ideas.

Yet, here is the sad part. He died all but penniless. While his co-creation Batman made millions for Bob Kane.

But while I read, Bob Kane was arrogant and shrewed. I hear remarks from comic professionals, that he was stupid and had no ideas. And he fluked his way into a fortune.

I think it’s wrong to say that. Whatever he lacked, Bob Kane knew his financial situation. And you can’t fluke your way into that many good financial contracts. And as shrewd as he was, it was a good thing in a way, cause he was going up against corporate sharks. But Kane made sure he got his financial just do in contract. And lived well financially because of it. (It’s a shame the Silver Age Marvel creators did not think in terms of Business Finance. If anything, this case proves creators could have had a financial contract.)

And while some may say: Look, Kane didn’t contribute much to Batman. He didn’t deserve his millions. I disagree, to all of them I say this one important question: Without Bob Kane, would there have been the Batman? Think the situation over and answer honestly. For me, the answer is a resounding No.

His presence, and being their is what helped make Batman. Without him there, there would be no Batman as we know him.

While Kane didn’t create much. He did create. And without him reaching out to Bill Finger, and working together, there would be no Batman.

So he deserves his money. And better him, a co-creator get a financial benefit. Then a corporation to get it all.

But the sad part is, like the companies screwing over the talent and not giving them their financial just due. Bob Kane, never gave his co-creator his just due. He acted like a corporation, and gave his partner nothing financially in terms of a royalty.

In fact Kane was so business smart, or shrewd, by contract all Batman work has his creators name on it. That of Bob Kane only, and not Bill Finger. So even now, the legacy of Bill Finger is not given its respect and due.

I can only guess why he never gave Bill Finger credit. Maybe it’s cause in him mind, he truly feels he was the sole creator of Batman? And at the least, the initial idea was his. And he approached Bill later. Maybe it was a case of pure Ego, and wanting all the credit? Why have only a co-credit. I’m sure a financial incentive was also there. If he was listed only as a co-creator. Half his income would have to go to Bill Finger, and why share?

I’m not saying it’s right. I can see from the above arguments, especially the financial one, why Bob Kane would resist sharing Batman as a co-creative work.

I can see that. But in terms of living with yourself, I can’t agree.

If it were a just world, Bill Finger would have received his financial share and credit of the Batman’s Legacy.

That’s the right think to do, and if your a person of honor, it is what you would do.

But that’s what happened. One of Batman’s creators, got compensated and another of his creators died penniless.

If you are in creative media: If you are creating something, get Legal Advice, read Contracts carefully, and understand your rights before you sign over anything. Also don’t be too forthcoming with creative ideas, without first signing a contract. Or at least, knowing your Legal Rights.

It’s important to think long term and about your rights when creating, especially now, I don’t think there is an excuse. Times back then were different, and most people were not informed about finances and creative media rights. But now it’s different, and you should know. Cause your lack of financial knowledge can end up costing you a possible fortune. And as the saying goes, Always get a contract in writing. Continue Reading »
eZine Articles WAY too picky. Batman article rejected from editors

Batman Picture with my caption

I had wrote a post before about Bob Kane and how he never gave Bill Finger credit for Batman. Much less the financial share Bill Finger should have got.

Look at my blog category on DC Comics: Batman’s Creators, Kane screwed over Bill Finger to read that article.

Dial B For Blog Post

I recently read a good article in 3 parts by another blogger. The link above is part 3 and the most interesting, and if you need only one part to read, that is the one. Included on his page are some nice graphics and specifics.

While I agree with what he is saying, I think he was too harsh on Bob Kane, and using today’s terms and ideas on a time period that was different.

As I mentioned, I don’t think it was fair what happened to Bill Finger and he should have got co-credit and his financial share.

But with that said, the link and post talks mostly about Bob Kane and how he picture swiped his art and ideas off other artists.

That will be the point of this post and how he is being harsh and not looking at it from another perspective.

For a rebuttal I’d say:

1. Sure Bob Kane swiped a lot of art. But really is that an unforgivable sin? Maybe Kane realized he was not a good artist and just did not have the ability to really draw well. So he did the best he could and yes he swiped art. But I do believe as I once heard him say, that he spent hours at the table drawing. At least early on.

He probably took others art to make up for his lack of ability. So I really can’t fault him a lot if that is the case.

Plus he was not the first to swipe and he won’t be the last. Look at Greg Land today. This guy uses computer programs to swipe his art. Not even to trace but to turn a few clicks of the mouse to make his art.

2. Don’t forget comic creators back then were ashamed to be in comic books. It was an art form looked down upon and creators were not proud of their work.

Why put your best effort forward? A lot of creators then were just doing what they can to pay that months bills. The idea of making great work was not a prominent notion that all creators aspired to.

3. Comics were cheap disposable entertainment back then. Issues were meant to be forgotten and thrown out, not collected.

Why create all-original art every month, if next month a new issue was out and your previous work meant to be forgotten. So why not take artistic shortcuts?

4. No one knew back then they were creating comic book icons or thought I’d last this long.

5. All things considered, the creators paid back then were not paid a lot of money for their work. At least compared to other jobs back then. The more pages and stories you made, the more you got paid.

So why not take a few shortcuts and produce as much work as you can in any given month?

Overall sure Bob Kane swiped his art and ideas. But you know what, in the end does it really matter where the source material came from?

Because the overall final product and published issue was a new creation. Swiped art and all, the final work was a unique story, greater and different from it’s source material.

And Batman outlasted all of it’s swiped source material and became a unique character of his own. Not many remember the swiped source material and those books, but many fans remember these Batman stories collected in the DC Archive format and other Batman story reprints.

Plus swiped art or not, is that really going to take your enjoyment out of the issues? Or do you just want to be entertained and read some enjoyable Batman stories?

“This was a hobby that I enjoy. … It’s not that I’m making a fortune. I’m making nothing. It’s ridiculous.”

Stacks said DC Comics has repeatedly contacted him about the figurines since he started selling them nearly a decade ago. The New York-based company is suing Stacks for copyright and trademark infringement, false designation of origin and false description and unfair competition, according to the suit, filed Monday.

DC comics sues over figures sale

Click the link above for the full article.

This is an interesting case to read. It appears that DC Comics is suing an individual, John Stacks who is making resin kits of the Batman 60’s TV show characters.

The man in question says he has permission from the actors or their families for the actors likeness.

Yet here is where I think he is wrong. He is making kits of the actors who are wearing costumes of DC owned properties. Had he just made kits of the actors themselves with permission, he would probably be legally okay.

But not when he is making the costumes and likeness of properties he does not own or have permission to use.

Also to be fair, it seems DC legal did ask him numerous times to desist. But he did not stop, and now legal action is taken.

That seems fair to me.

If DC out of the blue just decided to drop a lawsuit on an individual, I would be angry at DC for their actions for wanting to sue an individual without warning.

But if DC clearly did warn an individual, at least a few times, to the point of them knowing that the individual got the picture and DC basically said: We own the properties in question, you are making figures from. So desist and stop it now. Or legal action will be taken.

Which is what they did because he said they contacted his a decade ago when he first started selling these figures. Yet he kept selling them.

Then okay, he had fair warning and good enough on DC’s part not to go after the guy with a lawsuit until he knew what was happening, and he did know.

But if the guy in question then snubs DC legal and still continues to publish his unauthorized figures. Which is exactly what he did.

Then in a case like this I can’t blame DC legal for suing the guy. They gave him a fair warning more then a few times. To the point of him getting the picture to stop.

But he did not heed the warning. Now he is paying the price.

And even if he thought he had the legal right to continue what he was making. If a company like DC is contacting you more then once to stop. It would have been common sense to either stop, just in case they are right. Or to hire your own lawyer, to look into your case just to be sure that you can make and sell what you are doing.

He did neither and now he is paying the price. I wonder though if he loses the case which is what I think will happen, if it’s not settled out of court. How is he going to pay possibly millions of dollars? Does he go to jail if he can’t pay? Or is he bankrupt?

I also wonder what this means for customized action figure makers who sell online, such as ebay, superhero characters who they do not have permission to make? Custom makers have no rights to legally sell what they are making, yet they sell them online. And sure the excuse might be their selling the hours and skill they used to make a custom figure. But the reality is they are selling a character property they don’t own or have permission to sell.

I personally think it’s too small a market to go after. But legally I think if a case were ever filed the custom maker would probably lose. I only mention the above because if DC could go after an obscure resin kit maker, who is to say what their next target will be?

The Above Image is taken from THE RED CIRCLE: THE SHIELD #1 with my text caption.

News I’ve recently read that has not had much of a buzz is that DC Comics will publish once again books starring the Archie/MLJ publications Superheroes in DC books. Characters such as The Shield, The Web and others are returning in a DC mini-series called The Red Circle. The series is named after the company name that published them.

Plus their will be spin-off books of the four main characters used: The Shield, The Web, Inferno, Hangman.

I think the situation is interesting because the MLJ Heroes are not DC owned properties. Instead their is an agreement between the MLJ Heroes owners that DC Comics can publish books with their characters.

I’m not sure exactly the agreement or how it’s been worked out. But about a decade ago I remember the DC Impact mini-series which was the last appearance of the MLJ Heroes.

It looks like a reboot of the characters and all the previous DC history no longer counts.

I think MLJ wants DC to publish the characters because they don’t want to lose their copyright or ownership rights of the characters. DC probably likes the characters and wants them in their universe.

Though the Red Circle Heroes never could quite mesh into heroes with enough personality and character that they could build a long term sustaining book and audience. Their characters had quite a few iconic bits that influenced others.

An interesting fact is that the Shield, is the 1st patriotic hero in comic books, and that Captain America ripped off his gimmick. And to add further indications of how obvious the rip-off was, Captain America’s first triangle shield is almost an exact copy of the the Shield’s chest symbol!

But the funny thing is that Captain America developed into a much better character, and became the iconic patriotic superhero character. Whereas the Shield never really could get the chemistry needed to be a lasting hit.

I guess it just goes to show you that just because something is first, does not mean it necessarily will be good or connect with the audience. And just because something might start off uninspired, or a rip off, does not mean that it can’t be developed and become something unique and stand out in it’s own right.

The Web, from his name alone has a spider themed motif. And while I’m not sure if The Web is the first spider themed motif character in comics, he’s probably not. It’s a cool name, and the spider motif sure does not hurt. I don’t have to tell you who is the iconic spider motif hero.

The Comet is a character with a gimmick that others in particular Marvel’s Nova, and the mutants Cyclops and Cannonball seem to have similar powers. And Cyclops took the Comet’s visor as well as using glasses to control his eye beams idea.

While they were once popular to a degree, in terms of today’s comic book market the MLJ Heroes do still have a certain niche and popularity. But it’s never been one to build a long and sustaining audience, at least in terms of today’s comic book market. And it probably never will be again.

I predict, like the 90’s that the DC versions of the Red Circle heroes will be around for a few years, then fade away again.

Until then, it’ll be fun to read the books in this new revival and see what happens. And enjoy these new stories for what they are.

Type into google: “Why do DC Movies Suck” and you will find many links to Joss Whedon. You may know him best as the Buffy the Vampire creator.

In a nutshell he says that with the exception of Batman, the DC heroes were ‘like creating flawless gods. And that they were very much removed from humanity.’

I do agree that many DC heroes are too flawless, but I wouldn’t call them gods. And while I agree they lack connection to humanity. I think the real issue is many of the DC heroes are not very interesting, at least in terms of being movie material that the general box office public could accept.

Outside of Batman and the Superman properties, DC really does not have that many great characters that could translate well to the box office in my opinion.

Wonder Woman is a possible third movie that could translate well. But the whole Amazon, magic, other mysterious island culture race of warrior women makes this sound more like a Harry Potter type film. Then say a Spider-Man film where a guy just happens to get powers, but otherwise lives in a relatable environment in the city with family and his friends.

But look at the other DC properties after that. Many of them just have gimmicks and not much behind them.

I just don’t think the Flash with his only power gimmick of just running fast is material that will draw in much of the paying public.

Is the story of Hawkman and Hawkgirl enough to drive the buying public? A pair of heroes who basically have wings and can fly.

The Atom, a hero who can shrink down to ant size. Is this box office gold?

Martian Manhunter, an alien from Mars whose style is sort of like a second rate Superman. Can a movie trilogy be based on him?

Aquaman, who like the Sub-Mariner just lives in the water. I don’t think the buying public cares enough for either character to be box office hits. And like Wonder Woman, their environment makes them to unrelatable to the general public.

By now I think you get my general thoughts on this topic. And to be clear, it’s not to bash DC heroes. I think many DC heroes are great, but only for the comic buying audience. I just don’t think many of their characters translate well into box office material that the general public will pay to see. And most movie studios want superhero movies they can franchise.

With Marvel heroes, sure they have many like the DC example. Such as: Ant-Man, Sub-Mariner, Hawkeye, Vision, etc. that are great for a comic audience, but not a movie audience. I just think Marvel has a lot more heroes that can translate well into films because of their humanity, the environment they live in, and can connect on a deeper level with a public audience.

Also most of the Marvel heroes live in real American cities, this helps at another level because the general public can accept this. Whereas most DC heroes live in their own fictional cities.

And for the record, I don’t see Marvel’s Thor movie doing well. Like Wonder Woman I think it’s a tough sell for the general public.

The planned DC Green Lantern movie I think just might be DC’s only other fourth character that could do well in the box office. But I’m not betting much on it, especially if they show and talk about all the other Green Lantern’s out there, and how he’s just one of many and therefore not unique.

I saw the Watchmen movie a while ago, and I was thinking: This is the series that is so highly praised by the comic book fan community. Now we have a movie that is virtually a translation from panel to movie screen. You would think since it’s such a great translation, that the comics community would be praising it and it would be a blockbuster.

And this movie was, to say the least, more faithful to it’s comic book origins then any Marvel, or any other DC movie.

Well it seems that Watchmen was hardly a Hollywood Blockbuster in terms of critic reviews and box office total.

I think with making a comic book film, many comic book fans think the film should be 100% accurate to the comic book source material. (And yet when an example like this movie shows up, the general buying public is not there in full support.)

I think the comic fan base in terms of total box office, is only a small community whereas making a film for the general public is more important.

Look at films like the last few Spider-Man, Iron Man and Dark Knight films. None of them were 100% faithful to their comic book origins and their comic book stories. And those films did take creative liberties that their comic book counterparts did not have.

But what those films had was capturing the essence of their comic book properties, and translating a film that the general public could follow and accept.

I think that is the key to making a great comic book film that does well. It should capture the essence of the comic book property, and a story that can be accessed by the public.

Following the comic book material accurately is not a necessity. Creative license can and should be taken where it is appropriate.

Personally, I get tired of comic board comments of people complaining Ad nauseum why a film is not 100% comic accurate. As if a film should just be made for the comic collecting audience exclusively. Watchmen is a good example of why they should not be. I mean they were even so accurate as to include graphic scenes of Dr. Manhattan and frontal nudity. Hey director, Zack Snyder a little creative license there would not have hurt.

I was thinking about an article I read a few months ago by Peter David about Alan Moore. And it was in regard to some writer, forgot who, but basically his book was made into a terrible movie and what the author thought. The writer said, it really didn’t matter because his original work, the book, is unaltered and any variation or adaption of this book does not change the book itself. It’s their for the world to see.

The point was, the original book, the original material is the creators vision and spin off material or adaptions do not effect this. Then a good point Peter David said was if Alan Moore should hit hard financial times in the future, and needs Actor comic funds support, are people going to be running to knock down the doors and help him?

Here is my point: Alan Moore is very stubborn. And it’s funny but I recall reading how Moore while he respects Steve Ditko, really does not think much of Ditko in terms of his political beliefs and Objectivism. And in fact, from what I read, considers it basically foolish.

Yet here is the ironic part, Alan Moore has become as stubborn as Ditko, and close minded about his work as Ditko. And is not willing to compromise his work like Ditko.

In this regard, Alan Moore is leaving vast sums of money on the table. Let’s face it, unless you are rich enough to be financially free. You are going to need money to live a good life.

It’s also not far fetched to believe Alan Moore could make over 1 million dollars in a year just on Watchmen. All he has to say is something like, he will make a Watchmen sequel or prequel series. But wants $100,000 an issue for a 12 issue series. Plus a percent cut of the royalty.

Alan Moore is one of the few powerhouse writers in the industry who can ask for six figures an issue, and he will get it. Especially if it’s Watchmen related.

So right there he has lost a potential $1 million dollars. He could make a followup series again for the same price, say six issue. Then he’s get $1.6 million dollars. And that’s not including royalty fees.

Plus I’m not exactly sure of the Watchmen legal rights, and read something about DC having to keep reprint the series, or the rights revert back to Moore? Well whatever the legal rights case, Moore could decide to give up any and all ownership for a fee. Say $500,000 to one million? Not exactly an unreasonable number.

Now were talking, on the low end example, $2.2 million in potential financial income lost.

Moore also had the chance with the Watchmen movie to compromise and get a cut of free Watchmen movie related money. Yet he is too stubborn to accept it, or to promote the movie.
Worse is the fact that he is bashing the movie.

Alan Moore is not being fair to the artists in his books. Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons, the artist in the series for example, loses potential financial income and help, because Moore is outright bashing the movie and spin off material. This effects the artist in the wallet. If Moore does not like spin off material, at least be quiet and let the artist in the series enjoy a financial boost. But to actually bash the spin off material just hurts others involved in the project who are doing their best to create something good.

And in the end were are just talking comic books here. There only about 20-25 pages each. And Alan Moore could write whatever material, in this case further Watchmen material and he will get the price tag he wants for it. But the fact remains Alan Moore is to stubborn to compromise his beliefs, and in the end that is costing him a lot of financial income he could be making.

As for any fears that Alan Moore might have that his original comic book material is compromised, the truth is that it is not. His original Watchmen issues, as well as all the books he has written are untouched and unaltered. All the spin off products and material made, do not effect the original published work. It remains a pristine vision to be read as the author intended.

Moore is one of the few powerhouses in the comic book industry, especially in the current tough economic climate, who could get away with making a million dollars a year in comics.

Even more rare is the fact is that he is a writer, and not an artist. Usually it’s the artists who in the past made over a million dollars a year in the early 90’s, not the writers.

I just think it’s foolish on his part to not take the golden financial opportunities that he is presented. Most people in the comics industry will never get this. This financial door, while still open will not always be there. And if does not act on it while he has the chance, before long Alan Moore may one day find the door closed, because sooner or later it happens to everyone in every industry. When you outstay your welcome, you become yesterdays news and no one is willing to pay you much for yesterdays news.

One last ironic point, is read a few months ago in a book that Alan Moore’s most Steve Ditko iconic character that he made, to basically sum up Ditko and his beliefs was Rorschach. He modeled him after the Question, but also to be the most Ditko type of character that he could create. Yet Rorschach is by far the most popular Watchmen character that fans like. Maybe Ditko’s ideas and beliefs resonate more with fans then Alan Moore thinks.