I found it interesting to insult his own movies. I liked TF though better then the first one. I’m more interested in the robots then in his acting.

Most stars are content to use the media spotlight of Cannes Film Festival to promote their latest film and smile for the paparazzi. Shia LeBeouf, who has been walking the red carpet and sitting through press conferences to promote Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, in which he plays a young Wall Street trader, has been taking the opportunity to air out his thoughts regarding his last few movies. He told reporters that he was less than thrilled with last year’s Transformers sequel:

When I saw the second movie, I wasn’t impressed with what we did.

Besides trashing the Michael Bay blockbuster, which made an astronomical $400 million domestically, he admitted that Indian Jones 4 was also a disappointment:

I think the audience is pretty intelligent. I think they know when you’ve made … . And I think if you don’t acknowledge it, then why do they trust you the next time you’re promoting a movie. We [Harrison Ford and Labeouf] had major discussions. He wasn’t happy with it either. Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn’t universally accepted.

The young actor acknowledged that his comments may cause a rift with director Steven Speilberg, but said that he feels the need to be honest:

I’ll probably get a call. But he needs to hear this. I love him. I love Steven. I have a relationship with Steven that supersedes our business work. And believe me, I talk to him often enough to know that I’m not out of line. And I would never disrespect the man. I think he’s a genius, and he’s given me my whole life. He’s done so much great work that there’s no need for him to feel vulnerable about one film. But when you drop the ball you drop the ball.

LaBeouf says that his disappointment with the film and his performance was a motivating factor as he was filming Wall Street 2:

I feel like I dropped the ball on the legacy that people loved and cherished. If I was going to do it twice, my career was over. So this was fight-or-flight for me.

The follow-up to the 1987 classic doesn’t open here until September 24, but UK critics have already published their reviews, most of which have praised LeBeouf’s performance in the film.

War Machine’s side chain gun surprised me with it’s swivel motions. It was nice to see the Iron Man 2 toy helmet you can store buy was in the movie twice.

Overall a really great film.

And be sure to stay until the end of the credits for another scene.

This film also shows why Iron Man’s world is really unique and unlike any other superhero. He is not like Spider-Man, Batman, Hulk, Superman or any of those icons.

Looking at her, or bringing her back into the current Spider-Man books with a recurring role, just cannot happen. When fans look at her, they will just see and remember that she is Spidey’s wife, but that the marriage was removed.

She now has a stigma that cannot be shaken from the character. Looking at her and the fans remember the marriage. It’s inescapable this conclusion.

And why even associate her with Peter Parker anymore or his world? You know that corporate Marvel will never let a real relationship grow between the two again, that could lead to marriage. It just won’t happen. So it’s pointless to make them date again. And could even be seen as an insult. A way to dangle it in front of fans, yet full well knowing, they’ll never let them get close again.

And for arguments sake, even if they did let them get married again. What’s the point? It’s a case of seen it before. They made that pointless.

So I ask you, thinking about that. Is she damaged goods in the Spidey books now? Does Mary Jane even have a role in the book anymore? I don’t think she does for the above reasons.

But truth is, I’ve stopped caring for the book. And while Spidey is my favorite superhero. In terms of the current comic books and buying it? I can’t. I‘ve lost that emotional connection to the character ir his struggles, ever since One More Day.

It’s just a comic book character, and in a corporate, non creator owned world, a character can only grow so much.

The famous Illusion of Change line. Because make no doubt about it. At some point, he will be working for the Daily Bugle again and it’s a return to status quo. So this new story DOES NOT matter at all. ALSO, Peter Parker has been Unemployed before. So this new story is nothing new we have not seen before.

Sony Spider-Man 1 image found on google with my caption

Just read the news that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maquire are out and will not be part of Spider-Man 4 and a reboot is in the works.

There were script troubles and NO DOUBT Sony was not happy at all that they had to miss their intended movie date. For a studio to not make a movie date they planned and set out years in advance is kind of unforgivable in that business and they don’t forget it.

I think missing the planned date is a big reason why they let Sam Raimi go. And credit to him, Tobey Maquire probably left out of loyalty to Sam Raimi.

The problem was the script and creative difference on who the villain would be. Raimi wanted the Vulture but the studio wanted someone else. I think the studio was not happy because of the age issue with the Vulture. An old guy is not exactly marketable to a young buying crowd and audience now is it?

Raimi also probably learned his lesson about bowing to the studio for their villain needs after the Spidey 3 disaster with Venom. A character he never wanted in the film.

Overall I’m HAPPY Sam Raimi, Tobey Maquire are GONE and a Reboot is in the works!

While Raimi was great in the first film and the second film. And Mcquire was also good in both.

I think Maquire is too old for the role now and they need someone younger. I also think it showed he had no real passion for the role or character. It was just a job to him. I hope the next one cast actually reads comic books or has a passion for Spider-Man.

Raimi has passion for the property. Much more then Maquire, but I think he lost balance and focused to much on Peter Parker and his life outside the mask.

Raimi did not give us many moments of Spidey in costume in action.

People go to superhero movies to see the Superhero in costume doing things.

Look at the Dark Knight and the GREAT BALANCE between the Bruce Wayne and Batman action.

I think this is just what a new Spidey or any superhero film needs.

Raimi in the last Spidey 3 film featured Peter Parker way too much. And Spider-Man in costume way too little. With his Spidey 4 he’d probably feature Spidey in costume for less then 20 minutes again.

Let’s get the balance right in the next Spidey movie.

Also with the news already mentioned, I think it goes without saying that Kristen Dunst is gone as well. I haven’t heard official word yet but please say it’s so.

I hated Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane. She had no passion or interest in the roll. See the Spidey 3 news for how little she cared. And she never fit the look or was in my opinion particularly hot, beautiful, or attractive enough for the roll.

It’s been enough years, and three films is usually it for a cast in movies. I just hope they get a good director who likes the property.

And though the Spidey costume was great enough as it is. Why not upgrade it as well? Change the eyes to make it more spider like, and though it probably won’t happen I know, but make the under the arm webbing as well.

I’m all for a Spidey reboot and seeing what happens.

TMNT cover with my caption

TMNT Property Sold

What a year for comic books! It seems like the big thing this year is either lawsuits, or buyouts!

It appears that the TMNT property has been sold to Nickelodeon for a price of $60 million.

I say congrats to creators Eastman and to Laird. The TMNT are a modern day success story for comic book creators. It wasn’t like those tragic cases we have heard about. You know, the stories where an iconic character is made and the creators die all but penniless.

I’m sure the TMNT creators who owned the rights made a good fortune along the way. And good for them. But I think this was a case of their getting older and want to move on with their lives. Better to sell the property and get a big payday. As well as know the characters won’t fade away because a new company owns them.

I actually thought I’d go for more the $60 million the property, considering how iconic the characters are.

I think also the adult attitude Turtles, like they originally were in the comics are all but gone. But that’s okay because those comics still exist. And I’ve been over them and not followed the characters in years.

As for action figures I suggest getting the NECA TMNT characters on eBay. Those are probably the best turtles you will ever buy. Check out this video.

TMNT YouTube Review

Picture found on google with my caption

Besides the rise in comic book prices to $3.99 at Marvel for many books and mini-series, one thing that slipped under the radar and didn’t get much attention is that Marvel raised the prices on their collected editions.

I was in the comic shop recently just to observe the prices on paperbacks and hardcovers and they have increased quite a bit. Also page count appears to be reduced.

The Essentials line went from $17.99 to now $19.99 an issue. And page count seems thinner on some recent volumes then in previous issues.

Still it is a good deal for the price.

The Hardcover line, books like Ultimate Spider-Man went from a then standard $29.99 to now $39.99. And the last volume 11, was very thin and cost $39.99.

It’s not such a good deal anymore. Almost $40 for about 10 issues.

Marvel Omnibus line took a drastic increase. The normal big books cost $99.99. But their recent volume of Golden Age Marvel Comics cost $125.00. And seeing it in the store I was surprised how thin it was. Past volumes that were much thicker cost only $99.99.

There really was no justification for a $125.00 price tag for a book so thin.

In fact the whole Omnibus line seems to be having smaller page counts and sizes then in the earlier volumes. And sometimes Marvel’s price points make no sense at all.

For example Secret Wars Omnibus cost $99.99 for only 12 issues.

Yet Secret Wars II Omnibus cost $99.99 for more then 30 issues.

Paperbacks that were $19.99 went to $24.99.

Overall, you can still find discounted prices online in places such as Amazon. Lines like the Essentials are still great deals with the discounts. While other series such as the Omnibus line which seems to be having a new price tag of $125.00 just don’t seem like good deals anymore. Because even with an online discount you are still paying close to $80 and the volumes are not as big as before.

So the next time you are at the store, take a minute to look at the recent Marvel collected trades, and try to find earlier volumes in the series and compare the price changes.

Logo pictures with my caption

I was looking at the first issue of Haunt #1, especially the inside credits page which shows the Haunt characters chest logo. It’s a swirling icon.

I was then thinking about the Sega Dreamcast, their old video game system.

The pictures above show a similar style in look don’t you think?

It’s probably just a coincidence, but it sure is funny that both look so similar.

Amazing Fantasy 15 cover with my caption

Kirby Estate Going After Spider-Man

Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case

Wow what a news surprise!

What a bunch of crap in my opinion!

Having read a lot about the creation of Spider-Man. It’s clear to me, that a Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER have been the same as the Published Lee/Ditko version of Spider-Man that we got.

The Spider-Man we know today is a creation of Lee/Ditko.

THIS VERSION is the successful one. THIS VERSION is a creation that the Lee/Kirby version never would have been.

Read the Ditko paperback “The Avenging World”. It has various articles about Spider-Man and comic book creation.

Did Lee/Kirby make an undeveloped Spider-Man idea? Yes.

Was the Lee/Kirby Spider-Man idea the same as the Lee/Ditko idea? No.

Key Question: Are there ENOUGH DIFFERENCES from the Lee/Kirby idea to qualify and say that the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man idea Qualifies as a Separate Creation, that stands on it’s own merits? YES!

Bottom Line: What Lee/Kirby made of Spider-Man was an idea that was never fully developed.

The Spider-Man we know today is a Lee/Ditko creation that went a separate way, and stands as it’s own creation.

A Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER have become the icon we know today.

I find this latest claim to be Kirby Heir GREED and Hubris.

They assume that the Kirby Spider-Man idea is the same, and would have become the same thing. Reach the same fame. Become the same character we know today.

Anyone can talk. But I want them to back this claim up with proof, facts, documented evidence. Not hearsay, and just throwing allegations out there.

The Overall Conclusion looking at the evidence from articles I’ve read and researched is this:

Kirby with Lee developed an initial Spider-Man idea that Lee rejected. What Lee developed and created with Ditko was a Spider-Man creation that stands as a separate creation.

The Ditko/Lee Spider-Man idea became the success we know today. Became the character we know today.

If the Kirby Heirs are so right in their allegations. Let’s take Ditko out of the equation. Would a Lee/Kirby Spider-Man idea BE ANYTHING like the character we know today?

I think it’s fair to say: NO WAY! It would be MUCH DIFFERENT!

And that very FACT that it would indeed be MUCH DIFFERENT, all but proves the case that the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man is a separate creation that stands on it’s own merits.

If anyone deserves compensation for Spider-Man it’s Ditko and Lee.

And some facts I’d like to lay out of what Kirby “created” in terms of Spider-Man.
1. Possibly brought Lee the Spider-Man name idea. Yet the Spider-Man name in some variation (without hypen) had been used before. The word itself was already out there. Kirby never really created it. Just like the word Batman was already out there before Kane/Finger created Batman.

2. An Aunt and Uncle. Yet no reference for names. But in a previous published comic story Lee/Ditko created similar looking characters who by coincidence were named Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Also just mentioning characters with no description or character development. Well, it’s generic enough that anyone can have an idea. Yet it’s not enough to claim the idea as your own.

3. Amazing Fantasy #15 cover Kirby penciled. EXCEPT for that FACT that it’s based on a cover Ditko already made. Kirby just made the cover from a different perspective.

Facts that Ditko CREATED for his Spider-Man.
1. Designed the Spider-Man costume and visuals of the various characters and villains in Spider-Man’s world.

2. Designed the web shooters and out of the wrists idea.

3. Designed the spider sense and other various powers. As Ditko mentioned in his article. Lee gave him no specific powers to use. But using a power like clinging to walls for a Spider themed character is just a natural progression. It’s what spiders do.

4. Designed the way Spider-Man moves. His visual nature in poses and movements. All have which been associated with the character ever since.

If the Kirby Heirs win money for Spider-Man, it would be one of the big screw jobs in comic history. The CREATION and money should go to Ditko.

As I mentioned, what Kirby brought was an unfinished idea that was rejected.

While I’m for the Kirby Estate to get his Marvel co-creations. This case is really pushing it and in my opinion is definitely not justified. A Lee/Kirby Spider-Man WOULD NEVER be the same as the published Spider-Man we know today. It’s just wrong to assume that a Kirby Spider-Man would be the same thing as the Ditko Spider-Man.

The Lee/Ditko Spider-Man version is a separate creation. This idea went in a different direction and became the success we know today.

As I heard mentioned: Like Mickey Mouse, everyone is claiming a hand in that they created Spider-Man. As if whatever ideas they had, would equal the Spider-Man we know today. Facts and evidence prove otherwise though.

Had Spider-Man just been a failed concept, no one would be talking about the character. Much less wanting to claim credit.

Yet have a successful idea, and everyone wants a piece of it.

Various Kirby co-creations with my caption

Kirby Estate Goes after Marvel

This news is a surprise! It appears that Jack Kirby, or rather his Heirs in the form of his Estate are going to sue both Marvel and now Disney. They are going for the Copyright ownership of the characters Kirby created or that he co-created.

They are using the same law firm that is representing the Superman case in court.

They are also going to go after the various movie studios that produced recent films.

I thought this change in copyright law only took effect if it could be proven a character was made before and that a publisher bought what was already created?

Such as the Siegel case. That is why in the Superman case, the Siegel family won something back.

BUT this is a case where a creator made Work For Hire material, on the job. Which is what appears to be the case with Kirby and his 60’s Marvel work.

This is a whole other matter to me. And not legally, anything like the Superman case that is going on.

Also I wonder to what extent this copyright law was changed? How many years are covered? Because if Kirby, or rather his family is able to gain come form of copyright and character ownership. What of Ditko, Romita Sr., and other creators from that era? Is it all going to be open game now? Can they sue for Copyright ownership?

I’m no lawyer, but just because Kirby helped make a lot of characters, this doesn’t mean his case is more valid then any other creator from that era. Can and will other Marvel creators ask and get copyright ownership back?

I also can’t help but think greed is a factor on why the Kirby Heirs are suing now. Why not earlier? I think they waited for others to start the hard work. And now they are riding the coattails.

The Superman case is going on and DC appears to be losing. Plus now, with the recent Marvel and billions deal. Is it any wonder that now this case is brought up?

While I think hiring the same lawyers as the Superman case is a good idea. I can also smell those lawyers just being sharks and wanting to get millions. Which is what they will get paid if they win their cases.

Overall Kirby at least did okay financially. And didn’t end up poor like other creators. As I read in a post, poor people don’t leave Estates.

I also wonder the fact that didn’t Kirby sign away his characters in later contracts? This is in regards to the 80’s art controversy and what What For Hire meant legally. If he signed away his rights in contract. How can his Estate get back what was already signed away?

And don’t forget most are co-creations. And not his characters outright. So exactly what percent of ownership is his family due?

For example Iron Man is mentioned. Yet Kirby had little to do with the character. He only designed the original armor, which is no longer used. He did not create the Tony Stark face, or the first issue. He did not create the origin. At least as far as I can tell in evidence.

So is Kirby really a co-creator of Iron Man? Sure he had a hand in it. But in my opinion, not much of a hand.

Wouldn’t Ditko deserve as much Iron Man co-creator status? After all, it was Ditko who made the classic slimmed down red and gold armor that has been the characters trademark.

And legally speaking I don’t think there is much documented evidence to back up any cases from back then. Without clear evidence for your case, how can you win? You can’t just say you co-created a character. Their should be clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you can backup your claim. I ask where is such legal evidence?

I’d be real interested if Ditko could get some Spider-Man and Dr. Strange ownership back? As a creator, I think he lost out far more then other creators. He co-created an icon that the world knows. And never was justly compensated for his work.

Other then questions, I’ll wait to see if this develops and more news on the subject.

I don’t think this case will win, if you had to prove you made the characters before the company hired you.

But if they win back some control of the character, then I think this could open a door to many other creators.

Legally this could also be one major problem for Marvel.

The ironic thing is a few weeks ago I posted an article wondering just this topic. What if other creators from Marvel could get their characters back?

Read the article by clicking the link below.

Work For Hire Copyright Ownership Laws Time For A Change