Marvel Characters image found on Google with my caption

I’m sure you heard the news by now. That Disney plans to buy Marvel and all their characters.

My reaction? Utter Surprise!

For all the comic news gossip / journalism sites, I never saw or read about this coming. Yet, wouldn’t their be news of this happening for at least a few weeks? Things like this just do not happen out of nowhere. The information had to be out there in the business circles.

Yet I heard nothing on the comic book news sites. At least until like everyone else, it was after the fact.

I think this shows that the comics news people, may know a lot about comic creators and about books. But when it comes to actual business issues, most comic journalists know nothing. Or at least very little.

My further reaction?

THIS IS TERRIBLE!

I think this really ruins Marvel for the reasons I’ll list:

1. I’m not a big Disney fan, and for all the talk of ‘Well this will help get more exposure for the Marvel brand. And no one brands better then Disney?’

News item: Marvel is already a popular brand and has exposure. Look at all the movies, animation and merchandise. They have been a POPULAR brand for DECADES.

This really is not needed. You need a brand, if you are something like an Independent or Small publisher.

If they bought say: Dark Horse or maybe IDW, then the branding idea would have a point. It doesn’t in this case.

2. I fear since Disney DOES NOT understand how comic books work. It will only be a matter of time before some executive is put in place and at some point Marvel characters will be watered down.

I fear an overall watering down process will happen. It’s just a gut reaction and feeling I have.

Remember Disney bought CrossGen comics, and did nothing with the property. Why did they buy them and not use it? I feel characters and items that are not seen as immediate money makers will be pushed to the side.

If a corporate suit does not understand the product. Or really care to understand the product. Then they will only stick to the money makers. And push others aside. And demand changes to other characters to make them more friendly. Even if these changes go against what that character is all about.

3. Marvel always seemed a place that had an edgy appeal to it. Marvel was not a stuffy shirt, like corporate DC Comics. Now like DC Comics, it will only be a matter of time before Marvel seems like a stuffed shirt and corporate puppet.

4. I hear a bunch of talk about ‘This is great. Now Pixar can make Marvel movies!’ Well, I guess I’m too old but Pixar movies do not appeal to me. And not everyone is a fan of CG movies.

Besides, is it not the goal to get Live Action movies with actors? And not animated movies?

And if you look at what Pixar makes, any Marvel movie would be watered down. I have yet to hear of a Pixar movie that deals with serious themes. The Pixar movie company works in only one movie genre, and that not a genre that is really compatible with Marvel.

5. Joe Quesada you can kiss your job goodbye! Prepare for it. When big corporations buy out smaller companies. It is only a matter of time before the buyer, REPLACES the top staff of the company they bought.

They do this for a general clearing out, and fresh start. Also the people buying a smaller company, want to put their own people in place. They do not want the old people in place.

You can be sure, within two years you are out as EIC and you are done. Well it’s either that or at the very least being demoted. And do you really want to be demoted? Most people would rather quit then suffer that humiliation.

So if you have book ideas, stories and things you really want to do Joe. I think you had better plan on doing them soon. While you can still call the shots.

6. Marvel will become a property FOREVER owned by Disney. It will be game, set and match. Marvel is done.

By this I mean, Disney once they own it, will never sell Marvel Comics. This will be a Disney property and then forever remain a Disney property.

Just like Time Warner will make sure their DC property will never be sold.

Disney will make sure they never sell their Marvel property.

First off, with what Disney is paying. You can be sure they plan to use the Marvel property for decades, and have absolute zero interest in selling the property.

This is not one of those, buy and then you flip it for a better price, short term thinking ventures.

This is a very long term property they plan to use. In the end, Disney will benefit more then Marvel. The main reason is Disney will eventually at some point make their money back on this purchase. And then, they will be profiting from that point on.

Also the Marvel brand is firmly established. You know these icons are reliable properties. And that means you know it will sell for you.

Their really is no risk on Disney making this purchase. They know Marvel is a money property. And it will keep making them money regularly. All they have to do is wait long term, and eventually they will make their money back.

As I mentioned, Disney will have no plans to sell this property to anyone. And if their were an exception, it would only have to be a Bill Gates type of guy or company. And that just won’t happen.

I think Disney would rather fail and go into bankruptcy, then to give up any of their reliable purchases. And with that said, they will never give up Marvel. They would rather go out of business, then let that happen.

That’s kind of sad when you think about. Forever to be bound and never free to move around or be purchased by anyone else ever again.

7. 70 Years of Marvel, has led to this? ‘Nuff said.

I mean why really knew or thought this would ever happen? Back when Marvel and all these heroes were being made. Whoever thought it would eventually lead to this?

I always saw Marvel as the cool place to hangout. It always seemed to have an edge to it. And I ALWAYS appreciated the fact that it was it’s own company.

That it never really was just a branch of a corporation.

Now Marvel will be nothing more then a cog in a corporation. Marvel will just be a branch on a tree. It will not be a tree itself anymore.

That’s my point and I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

Overall

I couldn’t come up with more reasons and I didn’t want to drag on a list and fill it with needless points. What I said so far sums up my feeling on the situation.

Basically as I mentioned, my gut reaction and feeling is that this is bad news for Marvel. I’m talking about the big picture here, and projecting way into the future.

I’m not talking about the short term, but the long term.

I think in the overall view that this is really bad. And quite frankly sucks. I’m not happy about the idea.

Marvel will become nothing but a branch in a tree, or a cog in the machine. Not the machine itself, or tree itself anymore.

Also as I mentioned, I just don’t see Disney ever giving this property up. Like Time Warner will never sell DC Comics. Disney will never sell Marvel Comics. Disney would rather crash and burn as a corporation, then to give up their properties. Especially one like this.

If a corporation were to buy Marvel, I’d rather it be Time Warner so both universes could be together.

And in particular, I think the news blindsided me. It literally dropped out of nowhere. As I mentioned at the start of this article. I didn’t see this coming. I go to comic book news / journalist sites to get the inside word so that something like this does not happen.

News this big HAD TO be circling the business news wires in rumors for weeks, if not months.

Yet where were the comic news journalists to cover this story before the fact? I think this demonstrates, as I mentioned, that comic news sites only are good with dealing with the creator end of things. But when it comes to the real world, business end of the industry. Most of these comic news sites know nothing about real business news.

Finally, even though the news was announced.

I’d like to know the technical details and business aspects.

It was announced, but when does the legal paperwork get signed? When does it become real and official.

I’m talking about the official takeover.

What we have here is a plan to purchase, but correct me if I am wrong here: But the purchase has not happened yet? At least technically and legally right?

I’d like to know the details and when the transaction officially takes place and Marvel Comics as we know it becomes no more.

And Marvel then changes and becomes nothing but a Disney owned property.

If you have or know the details, shoot me an email at: comicbookblogger@gmail.com If I use the news, and unless you tell me otherwise, I’ll give you full credit for the news provided and whatever link you want to promote.

Thanks

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.

Of the properties that Marvel owns the rights to produce movies, which do you think is their best property?

I’d like to state, and feel free to add to the list, but I don’t think Marvel owns the movie rights to these properties.

Spider-Man is Sony and company.
X-men, Wolverine, Magneto, Fantastic Four, Daredevil are FOX and company.
Blade, does New Line still own the rights ?

So they can’t count. And Spider-Man and the X-men are main franchise books.

With that said, I think by far Iron Man is their most popular property. Who would have thought that?

Thanks to the movie, and the next one looks great also. The character is really getting mainstream recognition. Plus his abilities seem in today’s world very plausible. In the whole suspension of disbelief movie way.

I’ll talk about what I think of their other properties below, and while I hope their hits on Iron Man level, I really don’t think their other properties will reach that level.

Hulk, The last movie did just okay, but is not Iron Man level. I think the audience knowing he’s just a CG created character makes the audience lose any connection with the character. At least with Iron Man, you know someone is in the costume. And like Spidey, the CG Iron Man scenes are seamless and not picked up by the general public. With the Hulk, you know it’s all fake CG running the show.

Captain America, I think this is a very tough property to show off and not make it look silly or of no relation to today’s audience. Today’s young movie paying public, most of them were not of the WW II generation and have no connection to that era, or of America’s ideals. Many of today’s generation just see America as corrupt.

Plus by his very nature, Cap is a propaganda type of character. You’d want to portray him not as a propaganda piece, but also representing the best qualities of America. And at the same time, relevant to today’s world. That seems like a very tough balance to me.

Thor, I think the whole Asgard and magic theme might be to much for the audience to understand or take. I actually liked how the Thor in the Hulk movie was portrayed. They brought it down to earth the concept and made it work.

The Avengers, team movies are always tough to properly make. At least a good one.

Punisher, I’m surprised no one can find the formula to make a great movie for this character.

Others like Namor, Ant Man, Iron Fist I don’t think are popular enough to do well as solo movie properties.

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?

Superman, Hulk, Spider-Man images with my caption

Siegels Get More Superman

Recent Court Rulings Have given Superman’s creators Family, co-ownership of the character, with DC DC comics owning the rest.

It seems in the last few years copyright laws have changed. And what is happening in the Superman case is legal. And you you DC Comic, owned by Time Warner, can afford the best lawyers. And yet, DC is losing their case. They have lost quite a few rulings. This to me is further proof, that DC is in the losing side of this legal battle.

In fact if corporations did not use their leverage, and had the copyright law changed in the 1970’s, Superman would have been Public Domain property in 1994. And anyone could have made books, movies, or anything else they wanted with the character.

This leads me to this articles topic, and wondering if government knew about how comic books were made in the past, would they change the law to protect past creators? And to give them proper credit as co-owners of the characters they made?

When the concept of Work-For-Hire Ownership laws were made in the United States, I think it can be certain for me to say that a creative media like comic books were NEVER considered.

Comic books deal with a media that is both visual and the written word.

Under work-for-hire, it basically means if a company was employing you, and you created something. A character / story / idea, they owned your work.

Yet I wonder and think it’s time to change these laws in today’s world in terms of comic book creation. And especially in regard to past comic book creators work.

This article will also mostly refer to Silver Age Creators Stan Lee / Jack Kirby / Steve Ditko as examples.

Does Marvel, who was then run by Martin Goodman really own these characters? Or should their creators?

Stan Lee was a company man. So at most you could say Marvel owns 50% of the work. Yet to my knowledge, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were not on staff contract workers. They were freelance workers, selling their creative art to whoever would hire and publish them.

So is it right to say that their work, that of someone who is not a contract worker, is owned by Marvel?

Also in a creative media like this, Martin Goodman was not giving direction on what to create. From all accounts it seems that he left the creation to Kirby, Ditko, Lee. The ideas and stories they created were not driven by the company owner.

When an idea was made, Lee pitched it to Goodman for approval or not. But the key factor is, the idea was already made and Goodman had nothing to do with it. He was not in charge or gave direction to his employees on what to create.

So how is it fair to claim ownership of creations he and his company really had no hand in?

I’d say something like this, if in this example the company owner Goodman gave some direction like: I want you to create an Ant themed hero who can change his size to that of an ant.

Then I could say the idea and creative momentum was set by the owner.

Yet from all accounts, something like that did not happen at Marvel. The books were left to the workers to create whatever they wanted.

Also shouldn’t work-for-hire in comics apply to work that is taking place in the office? On company time?

Yet in comic books then, as now. The artwork was made at home. And the writing of Stan Lee, some of it was probably made at home? But I won’t speculate much on the writing.

So if the costume / character designs and visuals were made at home by the artists on their own time. Artists whom I might add were not company employees. Should not the artist have an ownership of those character design ideas, and their artwork pages?

Or is it right that the company own all that?

I’m no legal expert, far from it. But I really do think in terms of comic books, and especially to past creators and their creations. I think the ownership of characters made under work-for-hire should be looked into.

Maybe the points I’m trying to bring up in this article can help stir up discussion on the topic.

Earlier I mentioned those in government who change copyright and ownership laws. And I speculate that if they looked at the creative process of comic book characters, hopefully like Superman’s creators, these other Creators or their Families will get co-ownership of the characters they made.

All it takes is a change in the law for it to happen.

I wonder if anyone else has noticed this, but you pick up any Marvel book now and their are like 4 or even 5 editors in the credits. Yet only one listed writer and the art team.

Something just seems wrong when a book has that many editors have a hand in the process. And since their are so many event driven books and conferences that take place. I wonder for the writer, just how much of it is them calling the show in their books? And what percent is editorial making changes and steering the direction of the books?

I guess that’s why a guy like JMS has to leave a book. Especially when editorial starts calling way to many shots and plans, and the writer has had enough.

I think over at Marvel especially, the editors are driving the show and the books. And the writer is their to just follow the plan of the editors and is of secondary consequence.

Now as publisher Marvel is certainly in their right to control the books. But as a writer who wants to express their ideas, I can see why some people would get frustrated and not like what their writing or decide to leave the book if they can get a better offer.

With comic book prices going up to $3.99 and no doubt going up more in the future. I wonder will there be even less reader willingness to buy new book properties?

Or will, for example people who buy superhero comics, only stick with superhero comics. In particular the superhero comics they know.

Is their less of a willingness to by new books with new characters from other publishers?

I wonder how this effects start up companies?

The price increase to $3.99 brings up another factor to consider. Now that the retailer, even with their discount is paying more. And they have a limited budget every month. Guess which books will get axed?

The price increase will help further to let the big two companies all but dominate the market. And while books like Chew or the Walking Dead may be great. At the end of the day comic books are also a business. And the numbers don’t lie.

And while some people may be tired or even hate the superhero market. Again just look at what sells at the top every month. Look at what people are buying. Those numbers don’t lie.

If your not working for the big two companies, or run a creator owned book that sells good enough to bring a profit. It sure does seem tough for comic creators to make a full time income on comic book work only.

Silver Star cover with my caption

It seems that Dynamite Entertainment comic book publisher Nick Barrucci is wasting his money. He recently tried to get the rights to publish Fighting American comic books.

Fighting American Controversy

You can read the article above. It seems he never had the rights from Joe Simon to publish any Fighting American material.

I wonder why he even bothered to try and get Fighting American? That character is a boring ripoff of Captain American. The costume is terrible and the name is not even good.

Besides he already has a dozen patriot themed characters free to use in the public domain. Why does he need another patriot character?

Besides the public domain characters are at the very least, as good as Fighting American, and most of them are better.

Just a waste of money going after that property.

Dynamite Kirby news article

Now Dynamite has the rights to produce Kirby books, from the characters he did not produce for the big two companies.

This is Kirby strip-mining to the core.

It’s both a mix of feeling good / and feeling bad about a situation like this for me.

It’s good that these new Kirby books might gain new readers who will eventually lookup the original Kirby issues and the other characters he made.

It’s bad because it feels like their exploiting his work yet again to turn a quick buck.

Also it’s bad form in that instead of making new characters and ideas, they keep recycling the same old ideas over and over again ad nauseum.

Sadly for Kirby the only characters he held the ownership rights to were characters he made way past his prime, and in my view, lacking the truly successful qualities of his earlier works like Fantastic Four, X-men or even Fourth World.

Guys like Captain Victory and Silver Star look poor in substance if you were to compare it.

Plus their is also a bias in judging a work because it’s Kirby therefore you favor it more then if it was not his work. I think we all have bias for those creators we like. It’s only natural in comics, or in any field.

Yet to truly judge a work you have to step outside your bias and judge the work on it’s own merits.

I think if works like Captain Victory and Silver Star are judged on their own merits, they don’t hold up well. Their just typical comic book creations, nothing truly outstanding there.

I’d like to clarify the issue and hope it does not sound mean, even if it might sound that way. Kirby actually is in my top five for favorite comic artists. And in my top ten for favorite comic creators.

I just decided to look at this issue from a non biased viewpoint and judge the characters and books on their own merits.

As I said above, when he made these books he was past his prime creative years. And while these later works are okay. I would hardly compare them to the outstanding work he did earlier in his career. Unfortunately the characters and stories he made in his earlier works he never got to own. He got a percentage at least of his Fourth World DC books. But he never got any ownership of his Marvel books, who were the ones that made the most impact in the industry.

Batman image found on google with my caption

When you think of Batman, you think of Gotham City and Batman as a solo hero usually. And that is where he works best. But I think when he is paired with the Justice League, Batman loses his luster.

I mean all the other characters have legit super powers. And outside of his gimmick weapons Batman has no super power. Plus refusing to kill his opponents, Batman is restraining himself fighting and not going all out.

Comparing team members like Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Flash, Green Lantern, Captain Marvel do you really need Batman on a team?

He would be the first casualty on the team.

The same holds true for the Avengers and Hawkeye on the team.

I just really think Batman as part of a group loses that unique quality that he has when he is solo.

Look at the Batman movies and how good the last one was. Add Superman into that movie and Batman does not look as powerful. That is what I’m getting at.

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