Guardians of the Galaxy: Marvel mess in the making?

So what is up with this? Is Marvel just fucking with us? Are they trying to undo all their success with a bunch of unfamiliar superheroes in a movie packed with mostly b-listers? Or is this a big deal for comic book nerds? Seems like a spin-off of a movie to be named later. Something better setting the stage for Thanos, that's for sure. This is slated for 2014, Avengers 2 in 2015, so maybe ... Thor 2? Anyway: Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, Lee Pace, Ophelia Lovibond, Glenn Close, Karen Gillan, Benicio del Toro and John C. Reilly are set to star. Chris Pratt has pumped himself up in preparation: http://instagram.com/p/bdD2lCDHHx/

you buried the lede: james gunn writing & directing

Gunn is no Whedon, much as a I like "Slither." HIs name attached just underscores the straight-to-video vibe of this.

Looks like an entertaining cast, at the very least

LOL Batista, give Thanos the Dave-Bomb

chris pratt's ridiculous abs will guarantee a 120 mill weekend

how could a movie about a gun-toting space raccoon not be a hit?

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/guardians1-570x489.jpg

Costumes/prosthetics/makeup total budget looks like about $39.95, judging from this.

i would love it if they turned this into a full on gonzo quarter bin batshittery but that seems somehow hard to believe

So this is why Rocket Raccoon was in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Huh.

if that's what it takes to get more Rocket Raccoon out there, so be it

a bunch of unfamiliar superheroes in a movie packed with mostly b-listers?

I know I'm the odd man out on this but that's so preferable to me to big-name hero played by actor who's always gonna look like That One Guy You Know

^^^^^^^^^^^^

this is the one marvel movie i'm like genuinely excited for

who wouldn't love some bald Karen Gillan? fools that's who

I guess I should be excited about this, because I loved the whole Guardians of the Galaxy/Marvel cosmic stuff revival that happened in the comics a few years ago... But I think the movie will still disappoint, because the biggest draw in the comics was that they were actually loads of fun, and with the current superhero movies favouring the Superheroes Are Serious approach, you just know the movie version will be much more dour.

It sounds like they very much are taking the fun, lighthearted approach. Whether they pull it off is another matter

Haven't all the Marvel movies been aiming for 'loads of fun'?

TUOMAS HAS A NARRATIVE AND HE'S STICKING TO IT

This isn't a big deal for comic book nerds and on paper it sounds like a terrible idea, but it'd be nice to be wrong

congrats on becoming the spokesperson for all 'comic book nerds'

I guess the recent Marvel movies have been more fun than the recent DC movies in the sense that they have sarcastic characters and Bond one-liners... But the fun in the Guardians of the Galaxy and the other recent Marvel space comics was that they took all this weird-ass cosmic stuff that's always existed in the sidelines of the Marvel universe, and played with it for all its worth. And I just don't see that happening in the movie version, because the recent superhero movies are all (even if they include the occasional weird sci-fi concept like the Tesseract) driven by character issues and psychological drama, not space shenanigans. And I don't think that'd be a good approach to GotG, because who wants to see a three-dimensional, psychologically fleshed out Rocket Raccoon or Drax the Destroyer?

http://i.imgur.com/UV04sJT.gif

Holy shit, is that from the actual movie?! I really hope it is!

Surely all classically narrative-focused movies (and all forms of fiction, really) are driven by character issues and psychological drama? Unless you're suggesting the GotG movie should be a completely abstract representation of weird-ass cosmic stuff I don't understand why psychologically fleshed-out characters can't co-exist with slightly more far-out sci-fi tropes than the Marvel movies have contained to date. xxp

Yeah, it's from the movie Tuomas
http://whatculture.com/film/guardians-of-the-galaxy-comic-con-footage-leaked.php

OMFG at Rocket Raccoon. If nothing else, he looks great.

with the current superhero movies favouring the Superheroes Are Serious approach, you just know the movie version will be much more dour.

"You" don't know anything of the sort, do "you"?

i would love it if they turned this into a full on gonzo quarter bin batshittery but that seems somehow hard to believe

― blinded by aggro (forksclovetofu), Monday, August 12, 2013 4:40 PM (Yesterday)

with gunn directing, not so hard after all

Surely all classically narrative-focused movies (and all forms of fiction, really) are driven by character issues and psychological drama? Unless you're suggesting the GotG movie should be a completely abstract representation of weird-ass cosmic stuff I don't understand why psychologically fleshed-out characters can't co-exist with slightly more far-out sci-fi tropes than the Marvel movies have contained to date.

But the problem is that "slightly more far-out than in the previous movies" isn't gonna be enough to capture the essence of GotG, especially since all the previous movies have toned down the far-out aspects of the original stories. And I'm not saying there shouldn't any character drama in the movie at all, just that when it's put to the forefront, the other elements tend to suffer. I liked the Avengers movie, but it was basically all about the tensions between characters; even though there's some nominally some cosmic stuff, it didn't matter at all, most've of it could've been replaced by non-cosmic plot devices. That approach worked fine with The Avengers, but I don't think it'll work with GotG.

I mean, I kinda understand that in order to sell superheroes to larger audiences they feel they need to tone down the freakier aspects, but I don't like how the result of that is that superhero movies are basically action movies with a bit of sci-fi dressing. That's not what I love about superhero stories.

Tuomas is describing the Liefeld approach to storytelling.

I don't think Liefeld was known for cosmic hijinks, rather than pouches, big guns and incomprehensible fight scenes...?

i know the director isn't the movie, but have you seen any of james gunn's work, tuomas?

cuz that might allay some of your concerns.

TUOMAS HAS A NARRATIVE AND HE'S STICKING TO IT

― albvivertine, Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:50 AM (3 hours ago)

I think the fact that this is being directed by the writer/producer of Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed is the most frightening thing about it.

I liked the Avengers movie, but it was basically all about the tensions between characters; even though there's some nominally some cosmic stuff, it didn't matter at all, most've of it could've been replaced by non-cosmic plot devices

Er, the Avengers hinges on a plot hatched by an actual Norse god in partnership with an honest-to-goodness evil alien race. The climax of the film features massive armoured space worms attacking New York through a rift in time and space. That seems to me like a pretty good jumping-off point to introduce some totally batshit cosmic stuff in GotG.

Less dithering, more raccoon gifs.

http://i.imgur.com/BGI81.gif

xp but with more GIFs comes more dithering

HEYO

I don't see how you could watch THOR and think it was anything but Cosmic Batshit.

otm

Well, as it is, Thor is actually my favourite of the Marvel movies; I was positively surprised how much cool stuff inspired by the original comics they managed to get into it.

I liked the Avengers movie, but it was basically all about the tensions between characters; even though there's some nominally some cosmic stuff, it didn't matter at all, most've of it could've been replaced by non-cosmic plot devices

Er, the Avengers hinges on a plot hatched by an actual Norse god in partnership with an honest-to-goodness evil alien race. The climax of the film features massive armoured space worms attacking New York through a rift in time and space.

Well yeah, but like I said, almost all of those things could've been replaced with non-cosmic plot devices. The bad guy is the God of Lies and Mischief, but he's beaten in a fistfight; they could've replaced him with a human baddie and it would've been pretty much the same. The aliens are just soldiers with makeup; no Skrull shapeshifting or anything. The space worms are used like they're the equivalent of helicopters or planes, and they're beaten with guns and fists. The enemy is ultimately defeated with a nuke... So it's an action movie with sci-fi dressing, like I said.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never cared that much for the sort superhero stories where the superheroes just fight crime. I want Cosmic Villains that can only be beaten with Mystical Powers and Soul Gem gambits. I hope the third Avengers movie will be The Infinity Gauntlet, I think they could get a really good movie out of it, one that would satisfy both likes of me and the ones who want loads of action scenes.

Hopefully they'll do Dr Strange as well and really let it rip.

what's the difference really between "mystical powers and soul gem gambits" and a nuke?

I mean that stuff is normally portrayed as a big blast of energy anyway right? so you're asking for cosmic trappings rather than sci-fi trappings, but that doesn't make it anymore essential to the plot.

By "Soul Gem gambit" I was referring specifically to conclusion of The Infinity Gauntlet, and its sequel, The Infinity War. If you haven't read them I won't spoil them, but I can tell you they're not about magical nukes.

Or if you want a more recent comic, take All-Star Superman. That's an epic story with an epic conclusion, and it's considered to be one of the best superhero comics of recent times, but almost nothing in it solved by fistfights. That's the kind of superhero movies I'd like to see.

I've just this weekend read the two Annihilation series and started the Guardians of the Galaxy series proper.

Cosmo's gunna be in the movie, right?

Any good? Never read any GotG.

Yeah. Some of the best Marvel comics of the past 20 years.

Yeah, the whole trip from Annihilation to Thanos Imperative is very fun.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/10/10/forty-comic-creators-holding-rocket-raccoon-at-nycc-robert-kirkman-to-becky-cloonan-to-chris-claremont/

Apparently, the plushie Rocket Raccoon is the thing to get at this year's NYCC.

http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IMG_9526.jpg?f6a06b

http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IMG_9549.jpg?f6a06b

http://25.media.tumblr.com/a773aa762f313157b4d66d92a0ae936f/tumblr_mw9uwbepXS1qd39tro1_500.jpg

lol immediately recognized the same artist as "nerd blackface"

Rocket Raccoon and Groot rule in Guardians of the Galaxy test footage

A VERY short test clip of Rocket standing on top of Groot and firing a machine gun.

Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B16Bo47KS2g

"What a bunch of a-holes"

not enthused by that trailer :/

A man, a woman, a Hulk, a raccoon and a tree walk into a bar... I think this one just had to be a little table-setting, but yeah, I agree, Nhex.

I think/hope there will have to be some small Reilly/Nick Fury scene tying this into the rest of the cinematic Marvel U.

Love the fact that the trailer song is a comic in-joke:

http://media.bestlittlesites.com/images/users/gallerypictures/58543L.png

Also interesting - this io9 piece on possible spoilers in the listing for the Captain America 2 soundtrack notes that the last track is called "Quill's S.O.S."

How are people not stoked? Granted I know nothing but this is solid trailer action.

Should have parodied the Avengers trailer

"If we can't protect this galaxy, then we can sure as hell.... guard it"
"Wait, don't those mean the same thing?"

* cut to Rocket Raccoon screaming "BLAM! I murdered you!" roll credits *

had the trailer been two minutes of Rocket Raccoon shooting people in the face, I would have been stoked

I kind of want some footage of Bradley Cooper's voice coming out of his mouth so I can decide how ridiculous it'll be

Bookmark for future ILX use:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19g4ycv0n85ohgif/original.gif

okay that did make me lol

Looked kind of like a big-budget syndicated show rather than a movie to me.

I think it looks fun enough.

"What a bunch of a-holes"

― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL)

Is it Peter Serafinowickz saying this?

It just seems way too soon in this Marvel universe roll-out to go all Howard the Duck campy. I like James Gunn, generally, but gathering an A-list of the B-listers does not necessarily give me faith in the franchise.

Too bad Fantastic Four is in some sort of neo-Marvel rights limbo. That would have been the perfect vector to further expand this movie universe into other galaxies/dimensions. I know that reboot is on its way, but the fact that it, Spider-Man and X-Men exist in some sort of parallel Marvel universe really muddies one of the best attributes of the brand.

I imagine they'll find away round all that eventually, a film starring spidey, the x-men and the avengers would be like the biggest money spinner ever.

looks entirely entertaining to me. I like it when the Marvel movies are funny (Thor)

I imagine they'll find away round all that eventually, a film starring spidey, the x-men and the avengers would be like the biggest money spinner ever.

Sony cobbled together a whole new Spidey franchise just to keep the rights so I don't think they'll be giving them up anytime soon.

An film starring amusement park with spidey, the x-men and the avengers rides, plus Star Wars, plus of course Disney, would be like the biggest money spinner ever. That's likely the end game once the rights diaspora is reigned in.

so... Orlando?

I don't really get how Sony Pictures can have licensed the Spider-Man pictures "forever" but I can't find any concrete details on how their licensing from Marvel works

I think it's a rights in perpetuity thing as long as Sony doesn't let the series lapse for X number of years. Marvel sold off those franchises when superhero movies were at their nadir.

Eventually, though, Disney will have enough money to just buy them all back and then lock up copyright until 4500 AD.

That's still an insane deal; I guess Marvel was coming off bankruptcy a few years earlier, but it seems incredibly unwise in retrospect

I've heard of these kinds of licensing agreements before (if X property is not activated within Y years, rights revert back to property holder) but to allow this to go on in perpetuity is nuts

The Amazing Spider-man was basically the equivalent of Corman's Fantastic 4.

In terms of timing, not so much in terms of budget

I wish they'd done that as a loose continuation rather than a reboot; Raimi did the origin story pretty much perfectly.

It was painful watching them try to differentiate the new origin story from the old one. Worst part was robbing Uncle Ben of "With great power..." and replacing it with some weird off-brand paraphrase instead.

a spiderman movie was in the works for so long that 'this will never actually get made' wasn't a totally unfair assumption. guardians trailer looked good enough to me, sets the tone and looks worst case scenario the movie version of hitchhiker's guide. could imagine it not doing well and ending up an honorable flop like scott pilgrim or underperformer like pacific rim but if it's a hit it opens things up for marvel in a huge way (esp compared to wb/dc where they're so timid from having fucked up their properties they have to bundle wonder woman into a movie that already has superman and batman in it). i don't own stock in disney so why do i give a fuck if this is 'too risky' or they're making this move 'too soon', if it flops they'll keep doing what they're doing and take a tiny baby step out of the comfort zone somewhere else (ant man apparently), if it doesn't maybe summers become alot more interesting and fun.

steve gerber's 70s guardians of the galaxy isn't his best work, but does contain at least a few moments of genuinely visionary strangeness, whereas - like that panel reproduced above - this new iteration just seems to be awful zany garbage

I guessing having absolutely no experience with Guardians I just think "hey it's Chris Pratt and this looks fun" but I guess ymmv

all I know about Guardians is that they have a tree that only knows one sentence and a homicidal raccoon

That's the worst kind!

Bendis take on Guardians in recent issues has had laughs but been much less goofy. Kind of wondering if he was a script advisor of some sort and the comics series is adhering more to the post-movie outlook.

This incarnation, when the first appeared in Annihilation, were great. Better than the 70s or 80s versions by some margin. The following eponymous series was solid, and they were decent all through the big cosmic sagas of the 00s. However, once Bendis started writing them in the NOW! version they turned to crap.

True, seems like an attempt to bring them into the earth sphere of Marvel politics

The fact that each member of the team has some sort of baggage with either a galactic civilization or a galactic-scale individual (Thanos!) is kind of a good hook and Abnett/Lanning were good at characterization.

my impression is that Bendis is the go-to-guy for helping mold the current post iron man 2 movie canon arc

my impression is that Bendis actually hates action sequences and will bend over backwards in order to make more room for teenagers bickering with each other about their feelings

(in fairness, sometimes this approach works)

he should be writing the x-men movies

it's only working sporadically on the X-Men comic books

There's a "brain trust" of sorts shaping this stuff -- Bendis, Joe Quesada and I can't remember who else. Possibly Jeph Loeb (*shudder*) -- xps to forks

Yeah, it is Loeb, which makes me irrationally angry.

Bendis is great at dialogue and slow-burn plots and hopeless at complicated multi-character action-packed narratives as far as I can tell. I was obsessed with his Daredevil/Alias period but gave up following him after one of those messy cross-title Avengers stories.

Loeb is a decent-enough premise guy but don't let him try to outline

teenagers bickering kinda IS the core of the X-Men, they can't be punching each other alla the time

xps Quesada definitely involved, when he "stepped down" from EiC he moved into the movie/TV stuff fulltime

I've been trying to figure out if coming up with easy-to-follow plot ideas in broad strokes is his main strength. All his Batman stuff was very understandable but I just thought it was boring as hell. When he tries to write characters it gets... less good.

Loeb, that is

OTM. Get Loeb to do the plots and Bendis to do the character and dialogue and you're golden.

he used to be good, really!

Sorry, the Ultimate universe stuff is now the lens through which all Loeb work will be viewed. It's just that way.

This looks fun and campy in a good way (as opposed to dreary and campy like John Carter or similar).

Ha, my wife just watched the trailer and came to me with so many confused questions.

Like "Batista!?"

How are people not stoked? Granted I know nothing but this is solid trailer action.

The action stuff looks good. the words coming out of the actors suggest nobody involved in the script knows how to write funny jokes.

really hope they go over Star Lord's origin because he got such a raw deal and the character has a lot of motivation to be a jerk

it looks like two different films jammed together.

SOP for comics adaptations, right? Origin story + 1st adventure in one film.

Eh, I'm not so sure that will be the case with this one, since it has to fit into the broader story they're telling with the other films. With Iron Man 3 films in, Thor 2 in, Captain America on 2, Avengers a juggernaut so huge the second one is on the radar, this movie is a balancing act. Since I'd argue the characters are much less familiar than the aforementioned, it has to be origin, adventure, as well as pushing the bigger story forward. Because I can't imagine people will be satisfied with this if the only big picture glimmers it gives comes five minutes into the credits.

Or, you know, maybe they will! Resolution of the Infinity Gauntlet story at this rate will be post-Avengers 2, I believe.

yeah, i think this will be sowing seeds for Avengers 3. There's a Guardians sequel due before that even

also an animated show. Marvel seem to be pretty convinced this is going to work

i meant it looks more like a buddy movie comedy and a grand sci-fi standard blast em up

I was pretty nerdy in school, and I collected X-Men comics and had friends that had all kinds of comics, we even read Wizard all the time, and I had never heard of GOTG before this movie was announced. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

Marvels thing is pretty much just comedies with action, this looks like more of the same with funnier characters. I think it pretty much is going to be a action/buddy comedy film. If they swing and miss it will be bad, but if they do a comedy and it sells ok it really does open up that studio to doing some different things.

The Drax story at the beginning of Annhilation about the prison ship crash in Alaska I think could be a pretty good b-movie idea on it's own.

Loeb was always terrible and Bendis cannot write dialogue, guys

I was pretty nerdy in school, and I collected X-Men comics and had friends that had all kinds of comics, we even read Wizard all the time, and I had never heard of GOTG before this movie was announced. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:05 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this was rebooted after the infinity guantlet/war storylines in the early 90s when I was collecting comics. I forgot about it too.

I read comic books plenty when I was little, & I never heard of this property either.

I wonder if comics readers today call them properties?

if this beats ender's game numbers i think it will have been a victory for humanity, just like when jackass: bad grampa beat ender's game numbers it was also a victory for humanity.

1990 is what Im thinking of..

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/0/4/29547-4398-32838-1-guardians-of-the-gal.jpg

yep, that's when it showed up on my radar. and don't forget
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/blog_post_349_width/2014/02/rocket_raccoon_1_cover_a_p.jpg
or bill mantlo either: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/rocket-raccoon-creators-plight-draws-681744 )

in any case, it's immensely weird that they would pull guardians of the galaxy out of the toybox before deadpool. i guess the banks liked the idea of a new star wars

Deadpool appeared in the first Wolverine movie. Rights issues and so on

I knew about the original Vance Astro team, bought the issue of Astonishing Tales from the mid-70s they were in, but had completely forgotten that it was a reprint and that they'd originally been introduced in 1969.

ugh and deadpool was played by ryan reynolds and ended up shooting lasers out of his eyes iirc. real cool shit there, sony.

I read the 90 reboot of the series, and never knew about this one until after the movie was announced. Then, it was a matter of hunting down the Annihilation books and getting a Marvel online subscription to read the back issues(after already acquiring them from sources), since the 08 series is impossible to find.

I've spoken to comic shop managers who've gone on at length about marvel's(and DC's) apparent policy to never sell trades, or to keep them in such short supply as to be virtually nonexistent.

After finally getting a chance to see the trailer, I'm all for it. Chris Pratt's Star Lord not giving a fuuuuuuuck about the Nova Corps and expressing that to their faces seems a perfect touch. I hope James Gunn had multiple consultations with DnA about writing the characters.

I still want to know what accent they're going to use for Rocket, tho.

Them planning for Gaurdians immediately after Avengers makes perfect sense if you want to bring in and ramp up to the Kirby/Starlin Marvel cosmic shit so you can do infinity Gauntlet or whatever in your 3rd Avengers movie.

Does anybody know why Abnett & Lanning busted up as a writing team? I can't imagine anything they do solo being nearly as fun.

“One thing we debated was…he’s seen as a cockney accent sometimes, so we talked about whether we’d do that or do this sort of other guy from the city a little bit.”

Noo Yawk

Good question: if not this, what other Marvel title should have gotten the green? Daredevil, Fantastic Four, both tangled up in rights (Spider-Man and X-Men, too). And Daredevil. So I'd say ... Doctor Strange? That might have been as left field as this. Maybe something else supernatural-y, like Scarlet Witch? Vision? I want to say this Marvel universe has no rights to *any* mutants ...

I've spoken to comic shop managers who've gone on at length about marvel's(and DC's) apparent policy to never sell trades, or to keep them in such short supply as to be virtually nonexistent.

'00s Marvel and DC had completely contrary collection policies: for Levitz, the long tail was a fundamental core of business, and their catalogue remained as deep and well-supported as possible; Perlmutter had a policy of literally not keeping any books in print, because they would then have to pay to warehouse them.

A Scarlet Witch who will never say "Magneto" or "mutant" is planned to be in Avengers 2, played by Elisabeth Olsen

A Scarlet Witch who will never say "Magneto" or "mutant" is planned to be in Avengers 2, played by Elisabeth Olsen

I want to see the meeting where Sony's & Marvel's lawyers read the script as a DVD extra

daredevil isn't tangled up in rights, rights either reverted back to marvel or marvel bought them back i forget (same w/ hulk). it's the big marquee piece of those shows marvel is doing w/ netflix along w/ jessica jones, luke cage, and iron fist and then some big team up thing. fantastic four reboot is in the works (that's one i really wish marvel had, spidey and x-men were somewhat off on their own to an extent anyway). this gives you some idea of what is where:

http://geekculture.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/marvel-movie-rights-infographic.png

Cover art on GotG 1 is truly dreadful!

poor Universal :(

At least Lionsgate can make

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070411195859/marveldatabase/images/2/22/Giant-Size_Man-Thing_Vol_1_3.jpg

The name of our band that never got off the ground, circa 1992

I will say that signing up for the Marvel all-you-can-eat deal at their website is worth it. You have to be online to read, but borrow somebody's ipad or I've used a laptop in a hotel and it both works. Read all the Defenders series or the reprinted Simonson Thor books and save a shitloada money from buying trades.

The three frustrations of the service are 1) having to be online(you can check out 6-12 books offline, which probably won't last a flight)

2) the offerings are only what they've printed in the last 5-10 years, or reprinted in trades. Frinstance, every Steranko book is in there.

3) you're at least 6mos or more behind release

Related, and interesting: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/rocket-raccoon-creators-plight-draws-681744

LOL Lionsgate

A friend bought me that Marvel book by Sean Howe, and lack of royalties seems to be a recurring beef. On the other hand, it's incredible to realize how much of Marvel was really Stan Lee's baby. He kept it alive again and again, and dictated or directed nearly all the scripts of all the titles, at least for a long while. Of course, the artists were incredible, too, fleshing out his scripts, but it really seems like one of those DJ Shadow situations: it's impossible to give everyone what they deserve, because you can only split the check 50/50 once.

Lee stole credit from pretty much all his artists - Jack Kirby especially - and even the Marvel mode of addressing its readers is taken virtually wholesale from E.C. Comics. Take away Lee and you lose 'Excelsior', 'Face Front True Believers' etc etc - take away Kirby and Ditko and you lose the FF (which is really a variant on Kirby's earlier Challengers of the Unknown series for DC), Spider-Man, the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, Thor etc etc.

Pretty much every mainstream comic was created on a work-for-hire basis, across all companies, until things changed (a little) in the 1980s on. So lack of royalties is not just a recurring beef at Marvel (Bill Finger, the writer who co-created Batman, was more royally shafted than Bill Mantlo will ever be.)

the artists were incredible, too, fleshing out his scripts

lol

xpost

You mustn't have read the whole book Josh because it's pretty clear on how little Stan actually did in reality

No, I agree, ultimately, re: Lee, but unless this book is misreported, there are long stretches at the beginning where Lee is basically running the whole thing, where everyone gets fired but him and he recruits all the artists and inkers but remains the sole story guy, and the guy who keeps track of the expanding universe. A lot of the other guys - like Steve Ditko - were obviously talented but it sounds like kind of unpredictable, and everyone was always looking for a better gig (at least at this point in the book). Lee worships Kirby more than almost anyone else and gives him and lots of folks lots of opportunities. (He hires Jerry Siegel under a pseudonym when no one else would touch him). The bad blood and sniping came later, when accounts began to diverge and conflict, no thanks due to the loose crediting in the first place.

THis is also relevant to this discussion: http://kupps.malibulist.com/2014/01/26/stan-and-jack-and-steve-and-mort-and-jerry-and-joe/ (really long but worth reading)

Unless, like, there's a big reveal in this book, and halfway through they reveal that all the stuff in the first 100 pages didn't happen and Lee did nothing. Because at this point, 100 pages in, he's pretty industrious and essential. Not saying more essential than those other guys at all, but definitely the guy who gets it all off the ground and going. Has anyone else read the book? Is it considered bullshit? Like I said, I got it as a gift, from a major comics nerd, so I figured his endorsement was good enough for me. I'm sure the book goes into the controversies later.

but remains the sole story guy

lol

At this point in the book I said! He is depicted as literally dictating several scripts at once, and then spending all his time at home cranking out other scripts. This is by no means intended to degrade Kirby, Ditko et al. who were absolutely essential the Marvel identity. I'm just impressed by Lee's industriousness. As depicted in the book, Ditko hates Lee early on, and works independently, doing an awesome job but just dropping the work off at the office when he's done before eventually quitting. But Lee is in the office every day, working. So that does not mean Lee>Ditko. He's just depicted as working very hard to juggle all the balls.

Like, it's not like Lee swooped in and bought Marvel and took all the credits. He was there from the start, doing stuff. How much credit he deserves for individual titles and stories is what's debated.

if Ditko has quit already, Lee was years and years past being responsible for stories, and those stories were terrible and unremembered. (Lee's run on Spider-Man with Romita is possibly the only widely-cherished work he ever did that can be attributed to him as a storyteller, though, tbf.)

he was indeed industrious, on many levels. but his greatest talent was and remains being a flim-flam man.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that quite early on in the book it's made kind of explicit that Lee would come up with a very, very vague idea of the sort of thing that should happen in an issue ("Wouldn't it be cool if the FF went bowling and the pins were aliens? Excelsior!") and then Jack or Steve or whoever would go off and do something totally different and awesome then give it to Stand to add dialogue (which he had an ear for, no matter how hokey you personally think it is). The "Marvel Method" was pretty much that, that the 'writer' would have an outline idea then add dialogue to a finished comic.

Lee is explicitly called a token figuredhead with no idea what's going on in the company by about the Lee/McFarlane/Liefeld era in the book I think - he got shuffled off into movie properties and oversaw the FF and X-Men film deals lambasted above iirc.

Lee was certainly a workaholic in the early days and somebody had to write all that dialogue but it's obvious the artists did most of the heavy lifting creatively. Here's Stan himself, in the opening pages of the book, smugly describing the Marvel method

"It isn't generally known, but many of our merry Marvel artists are also talented story men in their own right! For example, all Stan has to with the pros like JACK 'KING' KIRBY, dazzling DON HECK, and darlin' DICK AYERS is give them the germ of an idea, and they make up all the details as they go along, drawing and plotting out the story. Then, our leader simply takes the finished drawings and adds all the dialogue and captions! Sounds complicated? Maybe it is, but it's another reason why no one else can bring you that old Marvel magic!"

I'll be surprised if you don't think he's a bit of a dick by the end of the book

So wait, is that book considered accurate? I've been considering reading it myself

It seemed well researched and evenhanded to me but obviously it's going to be difficult to uncover the full truth about things that happened half a century ago in a chaotic environment like early Marvel (especially when there's lasting acrimony between some of the key players)

the Lee/McFarlane/Liefeld era

Lee moved to Hollywood in 1981.

that would be Jim Lee

I've read the Howe book, and yes, it is very fair-minded. I don't have it to hand, but I'm pretty sure that at no point does he say that Lee ever 'wrote scripts', because that would be utterly inaccurate - as other people have said, at best Lee would have a story conference with Kirby or Ditko or whoever, agree on a general outline/plot idea, and then leave it up to the artists themselves to 'break down' the story panel-by-panel, page by page. Once he received the finished pencilled artwork, Lee would then add dialogue and captions; Kirby would actually include pencilled notes in the margins of the pages, telling Lee what was going on. This is a terrific analysis of that creative process:

http://www.tcj.com/a-96th-birthday/

The fact that, once Kirby left, Lee did not create a single substantial new character for Marvel seems to me the best proof of his shameless credit-hogging and outright lying when it comes to creative contribution.

xpost - Yes, so Stan wasn't shuffled off onto movie properties as late as 1991, he'd been completely gone from Marvel ~per se~ for a decade.

Lee did not create a single substantial new character for Marvel

For Marvel or for anyone else. (Fans of Stripperella are welcome to make their detailed exegeses on his creative contributions.

yeah sorry, I realised that's what you meant after I posted. He was still acting as a public figurehead for the company in the 90s though. There's one scene in the book where he's doing an interview for a series of videos with Liefield. The Robster starts drawing some character that he claims he's making up on the spot and Stan is like "we're both creating this together so we share the copyright hahaha"

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have implied he wrote the scripts, sure, but it seems early in the book though that Lee is keeping the entire enterprise afloat. You'll get no debate with me as to whether it was the other guys that made it great, but Lee comes off if not an auteur than certainly an essential producer/director, and the one inarguable (right?) fact appears to be that there would be no Marvel (historically) without Lee.

But of course, this is one of the most contentious, acrimonious he said/he said debates of all time, and many of the principals (and principles) are long dead, so ...

lol Stripperella! i totally forgot about that

even if Stan was as bad a credit-hogging, scene-stealing flim-flam man as his reputation would lead me to believe, he still deserves credit for his part in the era, as well as being a notable, positive public face for comics for the last 50 years. but you know, maybe just I'm biased because he signed a copy of Ravage 2099 for me.

It's VERY arguable that there would be no Marvel without Lee - you could say there would be no Marvel without Martin Goodman (the actual owner of Marvel until the late 1960s, and not coincidentally Stan's uncle - Stan never owned Marvel), or that there would be no Marvel without Joe Simon AND Jack Kirby, who together created Captain America and give the fledgling company their biggest hit character, and you have to say that there would be no Marvel without Jack Kirby's incredible range of characters, who continue to form the bedrock of Marvel's comic and film empire.

To give Stan some small measure of credit, he was - by the standards of publishing at the time - reasonably loyal to his artists, doing his best to keep them in regular work and trying to raise their page rates (though he could never compete with DC in that regard.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripperella

lolololol

I meant 'no Marvel' in the most literal sense. Goodman put Lee in charge and basically was hands off, as long as it made money (and the comics made much less than his other mags), and the book notes that he'd seen comics up and down trajectory enough that he knew to hold on.But there were points where everyone but Lee was basically fired, but he kept churning stuff out with a skeleton crew. Later, he's the guy who hires the likes of Kirby, Ditko et al. Those are the guys who made the characters and titles legendary, but Lee was the one who recruited them.

xpost - Yes, so Stan wasn't shuffled off onto movie properties as late as 1991, he'd been completely gone from Marvel ~per se~ for a decade.

― (D1CK$) (sic), Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:21 (1 hour ago)

Mea culpa, as the ILC thread on it has shown, my memory isn't 100% reliable about the book.

The Howe book is v. gd, but there's not that much in it that's new or revealatory about the Lee/Kirby era of Marvel (the Gerard Jones superhero history, for example, covers a lot of the same ground and is, imho, stronger on the Golden Age-era in general).

what are you guys going to do next, tell me that Stan didn't hand out all those No-Prizes himself?!?

I'm pretty sure the no-prize one of Stan's original scripts.

omg guys I'm dying here
In 2003, ex-stripper Janet Clover, aka "Jazz", aka "Stripperella", filed a lawsuit in the Daytona Beach, Florida circuit court against Viacom, Stan Lee, and Pamela Anderson, claiming she is Stripperella's true creator and Stan Lee stole her idea when she discussed it during a lap dance.

There was an actual empty no-prize envelope that was posted out to the lucky winners (again, this was the kind of thing that Stan pinched from E.C.):

http://bmj2k.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/no-prize.jpg

"I was delighted to learn that Lee has attained the status of an authority in the comics field. Twenty years of unrelenting editorial effort to suppress the artistic effort, encourage miserable taste, flood the field with degraded imitations and polluted non-stories, treating artists and writers like cattle, and failure on his part to make an independent success as a cartoonist have certainly qualified him for this respected position." - Bernard Krigstein, 1965

poor Universal :(

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/rockcandy83/Stuff/fave%20tv%20characters%20picspam/jack-donaghy.png

I'm late for a Namor Universe brainstorming session. We're planning Tiger Shark and Fathom Five spin-offs and the lawyers think we may even steal the rights to Alpha Flight through Marrina. Alpha Flight!

it's ok, they'll never stop trying to make SEA SUPERHERO happen

the best stuff is actually later on the Howe book e.g.

The empowerment of the editorial staff, began as a morale-building necessity in the wake of Jim Shooter's stormy departure, now resulted - in extreme examples - in instructions to writers and and artists on how to appeal to the lowest common denominator "If the Punisher appears in a panel with another character," Jim Starlin was told, "that character should be killed within the next few pages by either the Punisher or someone else. If the Punisher appears with any object, it should be destroyed in an explosion as soon as possible"

that just makes me want a humor comic titled "Oh No, It's The Punisher"

1. The Punisher should be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.
2. Whenever he is not in a panel, the other characters should ask, "Where's the Punisher?"

set it out of continuity, have the whole thing be Frank Castle wandering in the vicinity of established fan-favorites and new characters and said victims realizing that The Punisher's presence means they are doomed

maybe the whole series is a chase sequence with a protagonist desperately avoiding the Punisher, who keeps intentionally and accidentally killing every single person around him

krigstein otm

xps djp "and that bear... was my MOTHER!"

i was trying to find the right image but holy shit, it's amazing how many "Spider-Man" web searches lead to porn

Can you imagine if they had enforced those rules for

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/ArchiePunisher.jpg

ah, love that PunArchie logo in the corner

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/36845/1076351-punisherkillsthemarveluniversev1a.jpg
actual cover btw

i went to high school with a kid who was obsessed with the punisher and had a serious inferiority complex
he ended up taking "steroids" (nb: i have no idea if they were actually steroids, they were pills that he took at regular intervals throughout the day) in the hopes of getting stronger so that he could "avenge those who had been done wrong"
at one point at band camp (he played marching baritone i think?) he passed out from heat exhaustion and in a half daze i remember him telling us how he was frank castle
he's a cop now, of course.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt/punisher/images/23.jpg
KLANG
KLANG
KLANG
KLANG
KLANG
squitch

oh boo: http://www.angelfire.com/alt/punisher/images/23.jpg

haha great story

http://i57.tinypic.com/ifoo5i.jpg

that punisher kills marvel comic is the only punisher as protagonist i've read and it was fantastic

If I sound very harsh on Stan the Man, it's because as a kid, I totally bought into the whole 'House of Ideas' myth-making, and of course the shattering of childhood dreams always stings. I mean, I absolutely devoured Stan's 'Origins of Marvel Comics' books, I believed in Stan & Jack together 4ever. History is written by the victors...and the stans. So now, as an adult exposed to much fuller accounts of Kirby's centrality to the whole of the Marvel empire, realising just how mendacious or evasive Stan was abt their 'collaboration', I just see one of the worst crimes - an almost vindictive denial of credit where it was justly due - ever perpetuated on a great american artist, any genre.

I could've just said, KIRBY RULES

i'm with you dude, fuck stan lee 4 life

I had never heard of this at all before this movie, completely outside my radar as a comics reader. sounds pretty stupid, can't imagine this working as a film but what do I know.

He kept it alive again and again, and dictated or directed nearly all the scripts of all the titles, at least for a long whil

have we set the record straight about this bullshit? (not loading all messages yet)

i don't know the "real history" here, but you're saying there was another editorial force doing all the work that Stan is credited for?

also lol krigstein sick burn and totally OTM

xp

Stan did not dictate or direct scripts, much less "nearly all" of them for "all the titles"

I assume people have addressed this but Ditko basically dropped his work off completely finished; similarly Kirby would turn in work with dialogue directions already pencilled in in the margins, and pretty much every major idea/character he created for Marvel is clearly a part of the continuum of his career's work (Captain America w Joe Simon, Challengers of the Unknown as a trial run for FF, Thor stuff leads into the New Gods etc.)

Lee never created shit without these people. Before he had them and after they left him, he created *nothing* of note - what does that tell you.

insert Funky Flashman gif

that tells me STRIPPERELLA LOL

http://media2.whosaystatic.com/507561/507561_800wc.jpg

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_10_dumbest_avengers_stories_stan_lee_ever_wrot.php

omg I need to get some early Avengers comics

Marvel Unlimited is a godsend for 60s stuff. They're all there.

yup. repeating dan: this is the best seventy bucks you'll spend this year:
http://marvel.com/comics/unlimited

Though I have to say, I didn't renew my subscription. They haven't added new old shit in like a year. Will re-up when they start filling in the 70s and 80s gaps.

they post about twenty new comics every monday morning; mostly from about 7 months prior.
that's replaced my going to the comic shop neatly and brought me up to date on about three dozen marvel titles as of mid-2013

looking at storing the comics I currently have is making me reconsider getting this

one of the major draws is that it replaces most of the masterwork collections; there's complete (or near complete) runs of early iron man, cap america, avengers, hulk... here's the more useful link for exploring:
http://www.comicbookherald.com/best-comics-on-marvel-digital-unlimited/

Unlimited is tempting. I have shit tons of .cbr files, but lots of gaps. Are the creators getting any royalties at all from this?

http://kupps.malibulist.com/2014/01/26/stan-and-jack-and-steve-and-mort-and-jerry-and-joe/

This was really interesting. Within it:

In Jonathan Ross’s 2007 BBC documentary, “In Search of Steve Ditko,” the host sits down with Stan to talk about the creation of Spider-Man and his complicated relationship with Ditko. At first, Stan is full of his usual bombast (I don’t even think he knows he’s doing it anymore), trying to remain noncommittal, but Ross keeps pecking away at the question of who created what until, finally, the bombast falls away and Stan responds in as honest a tone as I’ve ever heard him use:

Stan: He (Steve) had complained to me a number of times when there were articles written about Spider-Man which called me the creator of Spider-Man, and I always thought I was because I’m the guy who said “I have an idea for a strip called Spider-Man”…Steve had said, “Having an idea is nothing because until it becomes a physical thing, it’s just an idea.” And he said it took him to draw the strip and give it life, so to speak, or to give it something actually tangible, otherwise, all I had was an idea. So I said to him, “Well, I think the person with the idea is the person who creates it.” And he said, “No, because I drew it.” Anyway, Steve definitely felt that he was the co-creator of Spider-Man, and after he said it and I saw it meant a lot to him, that was fine with me, so I said, fine, I’ll tell everyone you’re the co-creator. That didn’t quite satisfy him, so I sent him a letter, I put it in writing (in a letter dated 8/18/99), “To Whom It May Concern, this is to state that I consider Steve Ditko to be the co-creator of Spider-Man, along with me,” something like that. And I sent it to him and said you can show this to anyone you want to. And I found out that Steve still objected to that because he felt I used the word “consider”–I “consider Steve to be the co-creator.” Apparently he felt that wasn’t definite enough, so at that point I gave up, I mean, we just…I haven’t spoken to or heard from him since.

Ross: But do you yourself believe he co-created it?

(And it’s here that Stan’s façade falls away and, instead of giving one of his pat, rehearsed answers, he pauses, and you can see that this subject pains him and that he’s struggling to find some middle ground.)

Stan: I’m willing to say so.

Ross: That’s not what I’m asking you, Stan.
Stan: No, and that’s the best answer I can give you.
Ross: So it’s a no then, isn’t it?
Stan: No, I really think the guy who dreams the thing up created it! You dream it up and then you give it to anybody to draw it.
Ross: But if it had been drawn differently, it might not have been successful or a hit…
Stan: Then I would have created something that didn’t succeed.
Ross: Valid point.
Stan: But I don’t want to…you made me say that in this documentary that you’re doing and I’m sorry I said it because I’m happy to say I consider Steve to be the co-creator.
Ross: But you can see…
Stan: I think if Steve wants to be called the co-creator, he deserves to be called the co-creator because he had done such a wonderful job.

It's a great essay all around, actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4z7xuDhMeg

eh, mostly an apologia for industry standard business practices. overly generous to Stan as well, I think. Saying he's the most visible person from comics to those outside comics simply because he "had the personality" for it essentially true but elides the fact that his personality is one of a megalomaniacally self-promotional huckster.

and he confuses the issue of who deserves credit with who can legitimately legally claim it. he's right that Kirby didn't have much legal standing to claim ownership of Marvel's characters, and while that may not have been fair, its legal unfairness is sort of beside the point in assigning actual credit. obviously the creative process in any medium is convoluted and assigning sole credit is always going to ignore nuances and details, but Stan literally slapped his name all over everything, he was always aggressively promoting HIS name so that it would be synonymous with Marvel. No other editor did this (no one outside comics knows who the fuck Mort Weisinger is, because Mort didn't plaster his name and face all over every single thing that came across his desk).

a notable, positive public face for comics for the last 50 years

a mendacious, self-serving, limiting and damaging public face for comics for the last 50 years

Unlimited is tempting. I have shit tons of .cbr files, but lots of gaps. Are the creators getting any royalties at all from this?

Marvel don’t even pay royalties on paper books or foreign printings, the chance of them paying ‘em on these are microscopic

He was still acting as a public figurehead for the company in the 90s though.

He still does now. He’s on a million-a-year salary (or was a few years ago) to be a “goodwill ambassador” for Marvel, ie to go into court when required and lie through his teeth that he made everything up and told everyone what to do, so that Marvel or Disney don’t pay anyone’s descendants anything at all from movies that make literally half a billion dollars.

insert Funky Flashman gif

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2014/01/AC041.jpg

For sure. Stan Lee should not get undue credit, let alone all the credit. But I do find the Stan Lee hate to be pretty unfair, too. Like you said, this is a story we've seen many times before, and once something becomes a legal property, let alone one generating millions of dollars, this stuff gets really messy/ugly. The flipside is like Paul McCartney trying to get change writing credit for "Yesterday." There's no debate. He wrote it. He's the only Beatle on it . But it's still credited to Lennon/McCartney. No long ago, McCartney wanted it changed to McCartney/Lennon, and fans and whomever threw a fit, before the request was denied anyway. Just too much at stake.

xpost

http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/english/maclen/ppmcdcredits.jpg

also iirc he only wanted that Yesterday credit on the Anthology DEMO on which he is the only performer at all, Beatle or no, not to "change" it forever on all records

going by this brief snippet, Rocket sounds like...Bradley Cooper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Udzfdl2xuw

I'm with sic on this for sure and lol Funky had to make an appearance sooner or later

love the interior and exterior decor/settings on panels 2 and 3 of that funky page

that whole issue is wacky, I think that house is supposed to be like his family's Southern gothic mansion (maybe Kirby was deliberately going for a slave plantation reference I dunno)

http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/silverage/FunkyFlashman-MMiracle06.JPG

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/7/0/0/69700_v1.jpg

Stan apologizing to the stripper he stole the idea for Stripperella from

Don't disrespect Barda mh

http://i35.tinypic.com/ff24xh.jpg

interesting essay Josh

It was via Ian from Phil D. upthread, so credit to him! It's a great essay.

no disrespect intended

can understand as unremittingly mediocre a comic bk writer as paul kupperberg wanting to be another houseroy

Great argument, A+

thanks!

what the fuck is going on in Funky Flashman

(never mind, wikipedia to the rescue and man have the lols doubled)

I didn't know who Houseroy was supposed to be, but naturally Wikipedia helpfully linked to the appropriate person

going by this brief snippet, Rocket sounds like...Bradley Cooper

did you think they'd hire bradley cooper to sound like someone else

Just finished that Marvel book, and by no means does Stan Lee, flim flam man or no, come off worse than anyone else, who are all equally driven by ego, insecurity, greed and bitterness. I suppose only Ditko comes off OK, because he was the only one who just walked away. Kirby confusingly spends half his time complaining, and the other half repeatedly signing away his work for hire rights, coming back to Marvel, etc. (And for all the momentum his poor treatment gathered, he did himself a disservice by claiming he exclusively created everything about everything he worked on - even taking exclusive credit for Spider-man. Furthermore, it's not like Kirby's post-Marvel career produced much of note, either). All the artists complain about rights and royalties, but it seems like a pretty standard corporate environment; the guy who invented styrofoam is not getting royalties. All the writers and artists keep quitting Marvel for DC then come back in a few years, back and forth. Forgot all about Steve Gerber and Howard the Duck; dudes like him come off as genuinely subversive. Overall seems like a pretty petty, unpleasant place to work all around. Toward the end of the book, dudes like Todd McFarlane come off like total asses, but by then, the top artists were pulling in 5 figures a month, which is pretty nuts but I guess in line with the bubble model.

Oh, also, Stan Lee was good buds with Alain Resnais. Who knew?

In any other industry, there's generally room for advancement or a career path, though, right? Maybe Kirby eschewed that path by not starting his own studio or moving into management or editorial, but the truth is that being a creator/artist wasn't a long-term viable career path due to a number of factors. Even when he came back to Marvel, they wouldn't give him health insurance!

fwiw the two men who could lay claim to styrofoam include a guy who sold the patent for $$ and another who ended up as a research director at Dow chemical, so they certainly didn't hurt for that discovery

XPOST
Lee wrote two screenplays for Resnais in the late 1960s, neither of which were produced. Lots of people knew because Stan banged on about it in his 'Bullpen Bulletins', etc.

Yr previous post is one of the most concentrated doses of historical inaccuracy, aesthetic ignorance and corporate apologia I've ever read, congrats.

You get pretty angry about this, which is fine, because this is nothing personal on my end. Please, correct me where I'm wrong. I'm just related my take on the book, and if that's wrong, take it up with Sean Howe.

xpost Yeah, actually, I mentioned this feud to my wife, who works in a corporate-creative environment where corporate owns the ideas creative comes up with, and she basically said the reward comes in work, not in royalties. I think Kirby - along with every other artist - got hosed when it came to money, but by no means was Kirby the only one. And he did get more work, just unfortunately in the era when it was not making money for the artists. And a collaborative field, at that. As the book points out, even Marvel as a whole was barely making anything off those early Marvel blockbusters like X-Men and Spider-man. The rights on a macro (company) and micro (creative) level were scattered to the corporate winds.

You know, one can decry or disagree with the corporate culture while still recognizing that it is an unfortunate reality.

kirby left behind a few dozen phone book sized collections of some of the most influential art of the century. his visual acumen and style are endlessly aped and still resoundingly fresh. he is best known by this generation as "king".
lee leaves behind a few dozen phone book sized collections of predominantly ghostwritten collections of some of the most mercilessly re-re-re-re-rewritten ideas of the century. his tin ear is endlessly mocked by every writer in his profession. he is best known by this generation as the guy who narrates the old spider man cartoon and the dipshit who cameos in every marvel movie.

See, I have no problem with that, and think Kirby deserves every ounce of his reputation (and Lee little, at least as a creative). There's no argument there.

so people who care about the work get annoyed when, however abstractly, lee "comes off no worse than anyone else" and kirby "spends half his time complaining"

I'm just going from the book as written and reported. Lee comes off a blithe idiot, however essential (in whatever sense) he was to Marvel. But he is nothing (in the book) but consistent in his praise of Kirby, however disingenuous one finds it. But Kirby really does spend much of the story splitting his time between creating and completing, as do nearly all the creatives short McFarlane, who is like the Michael Bay of comics.

The question is, what did Kirby deserve (in the literal sense)? He wasn't unique in losing his rights, or facing the injustices of the corporate juggernaut. That's what I got from the book, at least, that it was always about the bottom line, even when the creative achievements elevated the works above mere revenue stream.

Creating and complaining, I meant.

Josh, what Marvel book are you talking about? Sounds worth reading.

"Marvel Comics: The Untold Story" by Sean Howe, which gets credit for actually being written rather than transcribed as another oral history.

XPOST

I'm not going to accuse you, Josh in Chicago, of arguing in bad faith, but the idea that you're simply recounting the factual content of the Howe book, rather than presenting your own highly partial (and frequently inaccurate) spin on it, is pretty disingenous imho.

I don't have a "highly partial" spin on in, because I have no dog in this fight. I started this thread because I had never heard of this title before, but then, I haven't read comics in 25 or 30 years. And I never worshipped Stan Lee or Jack Kirby, or gave either of them any thought until relatively recently, mostly because of the hubbub surrounding the latter and more specifically, only because a friend bought me the book for my birthday and I just read it. (Interestingly enough, Guardians of the Galaxy gets mentioned in passing maybe once or twice, I want to say mostly as a minor cult title of the '70s brought back in the '90s?). If I had my way, artists would retain the rights of their creations and get paid for it, but that's not how it works, not in comics, not in movies, not in music, which are all basically beholden to the same demonically practical "work for hire" curse. Should Kirby have gotten more money? Is that what it's about? Probably, but from the book it seems like all the writers and artists were underpaid and overworked, and no one kept the rights to their stuff. If it's just about reputation, then Kirby's got an unimpeachable reputation, but it is never about the reputation.

Was Stan Lee making money that Kirby should have been making? The book, at least, implied that Lee wasn't getting royalties or anything, either, stolen or shared credit or no.

One way it seems Marvel did vindictively screw Kirby is by withholding his original art, but that apparently came well after things became acrimonious and totally lawyered up.

I kind of want to read this Marvel book, but I must know: Does it contain any crazy Steve Ditko material? Really enjoy Ditko anecdotes, whether real or embellished.

Furthermore, it's not like Kirby's post-Marvel career produced much of note, either

JUST
PLANE
RONG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Gods_1971_1.jpg

I've said a few times, correct me! (I can't see the picture). I just know of his Marvel stuff. Never heard of the New Gods or whatever.

Have you heard... of Darkseid?

It's the cover of New Gods #1.

You must have heard of Darkseid or Mister Miracle, surely?

No. Wait, is that the villain that killed Superman? By "of note" i guess I was being ... glib? I just meant not on popular par with his more universal Marvel creations, not in the comic world. No one would make a Darkseid or Mister Miracle movie, would they?

(I only say that not implying that's the be-all and end all, or that they are lesser titles, just that's just where the money is these days)

Are Darkseid or Mister Miracle in any of the Batman cartoons? Do kids know who they are? I'm not sure I'd recognize either, but then, even when I read comics, I didn't read DC stuff.

No, although arguably Darkseid killed Batman a few years ago

Who was the one who killed Superman?

None of his post-Marvel creations ended up really resonating outside of the comics world, this is true (as awesome as The Fourth World is and all that)

Darkseid and the New Gods were the focus of the entire last season of Smallville, which was on for ten years. Kids definitely know who he is. He was also the villian in the "Final Crisis" storyline of recent years at DC. He's one of the major Superman villains; it isn't Jack Kirby's fault that movie producers consistently go for Luther or Zod.

xxp that was Doomsday

Oh come on, kids don't know who Darkseid is

Roy took one look at the guy in the Metron-like chair and said : "Beef him up! If you're going to steal one of the New Gods, at least rip off Darkseid, the really good one!

-- Jim Starlin, explaining how Thanos was inspired by Darkseid

Darkseid was on Superfriends back in the 80s. that's the only thing i know about him because i remmeber from when i was a kid.

(thought that might be apropos considering the thread we're in)

Ha, so did Marvel rip him off to make their bad guy Apocalypse? They look similar.

I found that hilarious in the book, how an artist from Marvel would depart or DC or wherever and then immediately recycle their characters with slightly different names to get a rise out of their old cohorts. Steve Gerber appeared notorious for this.

tbf I don't know any kids.

According to the ol' wiki, Darkseid has been in the following animated series:
- Superman: The Animated Series
- Justice League
- Justice League Unlimited
- Batman: The Brave and the Bold

No, Doomsday killed Superman.

I think I read speculation somewhere that Darkseid was the planned Big Bad in the Justice League movie, should it ever happen. And if pop culture is your touchstone, the New Gods were in Superfriends, Darkseid was in both the Superman and Batman animated series and Young Justice, and Season 10 of Smallville. He's also one of the bad characters in the Imaginationland saga in South Park.

The New Gods and their impact on the DC universe seem to have had the biggest effect on Grant Morrison, who you might have heard of. Seven Soldiers is entirely in the Kirbyverse, and 52 and Final Crisis can't exist without it. There's a decent argument also that All Star Superman is in the Kirby-era Jimmy Olsen and certainly has some of the same aspects.

Many xposts, all of which are still true.

I've heard of Grant Morrison, yeah. He makes a few appearances later in the book. Also seems a bit like a subversive bomb thrower.

So - not to get back off track with all this stuff - did Kirby retain the rights to Darkseid or Mister Miracle at DC?

If there's one thing I got from the book, it's that this world - both terrestrial and fictional - is massively complicated. Lots of writers/artists switching jobs, titles, duties, roles, back and forth, back and forth, hopping around ...

eh, justice league, superfriends. i don't really know the diff.

Which is the one with the Legion of Doom that lived in the swamp and had a bad guy named Solomon Grundy? That rings a bell from my childhood.

I'm trying to put this in perspective: kids know who Deadpool is. They don't know who Darkseid is. Yes, he's showed up in those awesome animated series and a bunch of comic mega-events that barely anyone read, even the Grant Morrison ones. (Of course, what I'm saying can't really be proved without scientific polling, I'm going with my gut, the stuff I see on library shelves and TV, etc.)

kids don't know who Darkseid is

my kid knows who Darkseid is, because he is all over the Superman/Justice League cartoons

has it been pointed out that the uber-villain the Marvel movies are trotting out (Thanos) is basically a ripoff/"homage" of Darkseid?

she is 6 btw

Is she white?

While the comic book experts are out in force, I'm looking for a decent account of the late 80s/early 90s bubble. It sounds like it's been covered a bit in the Marvel book but if anyone can recommend a fuller picture - book or online - that would be super helpful.

yeah, I mentioned the Starlin/Thomas conversation about Thanos's creation xp

Is she white?

wtf kind of question is this?

lol

ILx memes: Summer 2008 collection

ILX, where board jokes never die, even after six years

The Marvel book gives a pretty full account of the late '80s/early '90s bubble.

Thanks Josh

The idea that we should be judging the worth of Kirby's post-Marvel career on how culturally ubiquitous or otherwise Mister Miracle is, is just asinine.

But to answer your question, DC gave Kirby some additional royalties for the New Gods characters at the same that he was embroiled in the artwork dispute with Marvel.

I'm not sure why we're questioning if kids know Kirby characters. Is it because we're pretending that comics are ostensibly for children, still, in 2014?

No. Look, Kirby's works are unimpeachable, but I don't believe you can say with a straight face that any of his post-Marvel work has anywhere the recognition and lasting influence that his Marvel stuff did. Yes, artists and die-hard fans will carry on his legacy and in the greater scheme of things, as a Great Artist/Man, the King will live on.

xpost No, it's only because upthread someone pointed out (accurately) that no matter how much credit you give Stan Lee, he didn't contribute shit after his early tenure. My point (not that I'm debating Kirby's worth) is that by that standard, Kirby wasn't exactly churning out iconic works either post Marvel, or in between Marvel tenures, because the weird thing is, the guy went back! But I guess some people consider Darkseid iconic, so that's cool.

The people I think got hosed the most are the writers. Like him or hate him, no one doubts Stan Lee wrote a lot of the early stuff, right? It's not to Kirby's credit (in this book) that he continually dismisses the merits of the writer as basically space filler afterthoughts. I felt pretty bad for, say, Chris Claremont, who co-created several characters, too, and obviously a few iconic stories, but worked exclusively as a writer, so had a harder time hopping around from company to company doing freelance inking or whatever.

Darkseid has def had lasting influence (right down to the next Marvel blockbuster), but Marvel's higher level-of-recognition is surely down to the performance of their film properties in the past decade, which have easily surpassed DC's for reasons that don't have anything to do with Kirby or the quality of his ideas/work

xp

Like him or hate him, no one doubts Stan Lee wrote a lot of the early stuff, right?

are you reading this thread

lol

My point (not that I'm debating Kirby's worth) is that by that standard, Kirby wasn't exactly churning out iconic works either post Marvel, or in between Marvel tenures, because the weird thing is, the guy went back!

no, no, no, no, no, no way. I'm a Marvel Zombie all the way, but the Fourth World is as important in his oeuvre as his entire 60s Marvel output.

Recommended followup reading for Josh:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DrJ-DngVL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

just the idea that you would have a single storyline spanning multiple titles and series - that idea is so central to superhero comics (and Marvel's films!) and that is Kirby all the way. he did that.

doesn't that discount the efforts of the other writers and editors at '60s Marvel a bit?

no because they didn't do that! Fourth World was the first.

sure you might have Spider-man pop up for a few incidental panels in an FF issue or something, but having a long, unfolding story arc playing out across multiple concurrent series - Fourth World is the first.

just the idea that you would have a single storyline spanning multiple titles and series - that idea is so central to superhero comics (and Marvel's films!) and that is Kirby all the way. he did that.

― How dare you tarnish the reputation of Turturro's yodel (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, March 3, 2014 12:26 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol is that something to laud him for

I'm pretty sure '60s Marvel did invent the whole "See blah blah happened in issue #22 of Avengers!". As silly as that sounds, they were the first to create a comic universe where everything felt like it was all happening at the same time, in the same place, in this crazy '60s NYC w/mutants and Fantastic Four and Avengers and Spider-Man and so on. It was even semi-real time for a while. Kirby, of course was part of it. Fourth World was certainly more ambitious, but a natural follow-up to that work.

I'm pretty sure '60s Marvel did invent the whole "See blah blah happened in issue #22 of Avengers!".

wrong

lol is that something to laud him for

haha yeah it's definitely an approach that's been abused, but I thought we were talking about impact/influence etc.

At the least that Kirby book cover is awesome!!!!

When I say Lee wrote, perhaps you guys are taking me too, well, literally. I mean he wrote the dialog and stuff, not that he devised the stories.

And by early, I also mean eeaaaaarly. Stuff starts getting good once Lee steps back and lets hist dudes do their work. That's one of Kirby's (and Ditko's) points, that they were working pretty much independently, just turning in their stuff. I guess one of Lee's counterpoints is that they never saw the finished works when they were done, where things were changed, and given the micromanaging at work at Marvel (in the Shooter era he would complain about misdrawn shoelaces and make people redo covers; man, Shooter seemed like the worst boss), it's hard to believe even the work of Kirby, who Lee, again, consistently hires/boosts/lauds, made it from pen to press unchanged. But maybe!

Shakey, how is Nhex wrong? I'm looking at Avengers #7 and it has footnotes referring to Tales of Suspense #56 on page 1 and Journey Into Mystery #103 on page 2. Early Marvel was jammed full of cross-referenced universe and continuity construction.

Lee was more aggressive with the in-panel notes but iirc Silver Age DC stuff (Flash etc.) was also doing this and earlier

http://24.media.tumblr.com/544a31da06eb44b9e1e80785873a6f9c/tumblr_mnzbxz5ZX91suw3bto1_1280.jpg

As great as Kirby was, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Lee's idea that if Kirby didn't draw Spiderman somebody else would have. A character like Darth Vader is just as iconic and I doubt that the concept artists and costume designers who created his look get any royalties from all of the merchandising. It's highly unusual that Lucas even retained ownership of that stuff!

I was just reading about that, or some of that, vis a vis Star Wars licensing. This is about the sequels:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/08/18/230223/

But within is this blurb about the original toys:

The Star Wars toy license has an intriguing history. In 1977, Lucas granted Kenner the exclusive rights to produce Star Wars toys in perpetuity for $100,000 per year. Back then, of course, no one realized how valuable that right was, and for years Kenner made millions of dollars selling little plastic Princess Leias and R2-D2s. In 1991, Hasbro bought Kenner. But by then, sales of Star Wars toys were nonexistent, so a Hasbro accountant figured he could save the company $100,000 by not sending George Lucas a check. A year later a Lucas employee saw Galoob's product line at a trade show and asked the company whether it would be interested in making Star Wars toys. Galoob's management jumped at the chance, launched its own Star Wars line, and promoted it heavily. Hasbro struck back and convinced Lucas that it still wanted to make Star Wars toys after all, but Galoob had its foot in the door. This year Galoob will sell about $120 million worth of small-scale Star Wars toys; Hasbro will do about $200 million of larger pieces.

$$$

I was just looking through some Kirby art and I'd forgotten how great he was at the photo collage backgrounds. I think I associate it with Steranko more due to the fact that so many ideas came from Kirby that I have trouble pinning any specific one to him.

good piece here about just that
http://www.printmag.com/illustration/jack-kirbys-collages-in-context/
http://d1xcqlxj49e9dd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/f.-FF51.jpg

i trust that's lee's input as "it's both weird and beautiful"

The Fantastic Four Annual #6, 1968. Notice the margin note in Kirby’s handwriting for FF #51: “It is both weird and beautiful.”

:/

why the :/ face, mh

I liked the idea of it being a trite Stan Lee description of great art

hah!

let's get real, though -- if it was Stan, there is no way he'd use that few words

I think there are instances where the printing didn't do Kirby's original collage art justice, things just got really dark and muddy

I think the marginal note is Kirby explaining what's going on, as an aid to Lee's dialogue and caption writing

love those photo collages

by no means does Stan Lee, flim flam man or no, come off worse than anyone else

I think there are an awful lot of creators in the Howe book who come off a lot better than Lee - Jim Starlin and Steve Englehart, just off the top of my head. So again, this idea that yours is a dispassionate accounting of the Howe book, that you're "just going from the book as written and reported", is bullshit - you've got an agenda, a way of reading it, just like everyone else. It's just, your particular reading happens to be on the side of corporate theft and egregious credit stealing.

I suppose only Ditko comes off OK, because he was the only one who just walked away.

Except that like Kirby he went back to work at Marvel in the 1970s.

Kirby confusingly spends half his time complaining, and the other half repeatedly signing away his work for hire rights, coming back to Marvel, etc.

You don't "sign away" work for hire rights - by signing up for work for hire, you sign away your rights. Nobody knows for sure what kind of agreement Kirby had with Martin Goodman in the 1960s - Mark Evanier has suggested that Goodman made verbal promises to Kirby that he would 'do the right thing' by him, and of course never did, and probably had no intention of ever doing so. The fact that in the 1980s Marvel tied in the return of Jack's artwork with him signing away, once and for all, any rights to the Marvel characters he created strongly indicated that Marvel in fact had no contract, no work for hire agreements, no rights waiving documents signed by Kirby on file.

The Comics Journal interview - which, despite your assertion, is pretty much the only time that Kirby attacked Lee and Marvel in public - where Kirby claimed credit for EVERYTHING came on the back of this original artwork dispute, which was incredibly emotionally draining on the Kirby family, and by this point Kirby was frail of mind and body (and he had an interviewer in Gary Groth who was not going to stop Kirby from laying into Lee). Again, compare this to the thousands of interviews where Stan Lee has claimed credit for characters, stories and ideas that he didn't actually create.

Forgot all about Steve Gerber and Howard the Duck; dudes like him come off as genuinely subversive.

This is the same Steve Gerber who collaborated with Jack Kirby on the Destroyer Duck comic, which was an all-out attack on the greed of corporate entities like Marvel (aka 'Godcorp'.)

None of his post-Marvel creations ended up really resonating outside of the comics world, this is true (as awesome as The Fourth World is and all that)

The similarities between Darkseid and Darth Vader are more than mere coincidence, imho.

The people I think got hosed the most are the writers. Like him or hate him, no one doubts Stan Lee wrote a lot of the early stuff, right?

When people like myself, Shakey, Forks and Sic have spent the last two hundred posts exactly expressing our doubts that Lee wrote "a lot" of the "early stuff" (by which I take you to mean the early Marvel superhero titles, not the Timely or Atlas comics that preceded FF#1) then is it any wonder we find your generalisations annoying and your reading comprehension pitiful?

felt pretty bad for, say, Chris Claremont, who co-created several characters, too, and obviously a few iconic stories, but worked exclusively as a writer, so had a harder time hopping around from company to company doing freelance inking or whatever.

Claremont was writing Marvel's best-selling comic at the time that royalties were first introduced, and consequently did extremely well financially compared to almost every superhero comic book writer before him. By the 1980s, 'star' creators like Claremont would invariably be signed to exclusive contracts where they would be guaranteed a certain amount of work every month and given health insurance and other benefits - so Claremont would have had no need to 'moonlight' elsewhere. It is also far easier to be prolific as a writer of comics than it is as an artist, so someone like Bill Mantlo could easily write five or more comics a month, an output impossible for most artists - unless they were Jack Kirby...

Again, as mentioned upthread, Kirby wrote pencil annotations on pretty much all his Marvel artwork explaining to Stan Lee what was going on. Lee would then write the dialogue and captions, based on these notes; I'm happy to accept Roy Thomas' argument that Lee often went out of his way to deliberately write counter to Kirby's suggestions, partly as a way to assert his own authorship.

...which usually made for disjunctive, frustrating reading.

A character like Darth Vader is just as iconic

loool, love this after the long "Darkseid is not iconic!" argudigression. note also "The Source" vs "The Force."

The similarities between Darkseid and Darth Vader are more than mere coincidence, imho.

loool MAYBE EVERYONE STOLE FROM KIRBY!!!!!111!!

Darth Vader's antecedents in science fiction pulps and movie serials are more than ample without dragging Darkseid into it.

yeah, srsly

surely someone on the internet has done a lengthy dissertation on iphone as mother box

Also, "The Force" was not "The Force" until waaaaay into the screenwriting process - it started as two things called "The Bogan" and "The Ashla," then became "The Force of Others," etc. etc. before getting whittled down.

lol The Bogan? really?

Darth is actually more similar to Doctor Doom

In 1965 Ditko gave pretty much his only interview to a fanzine. I think this fabulously terse exchange is as close to the truth of Spider-Man's creation as we'll ever get:

Gary: Who originated Spider-man??
Steve: Stan Lee thought the name up. I did costume, web gimmick on wrist, & spider signal.

Gary: Would you enjoy continuing on him?
Steve: If nothing better comes along.
http://ditkocultist.com/2012/03/05/steve-ditko-interview-the-comic-fan-2-1965/

for your iphone use:
http://www.nathanarcher.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/fatherbox_768x1024_final.jpg

is the interview where stan says "he's willing" to share credit with ditko but feels like it was his idea and, as such, he's the creator on here anywhere?

It was quoted upthread

right. that kinda covers it for me. like "hey i said the word 'spiderman' so my idea, so my success really if you think about it" is just the most GAH attitude

lol The Bogan? really?

Yep. From one of Lucas's early 1975 drafts (note: "Windy" here is a character whose full name in the screenplay is "Mace Windy," which would of course become "Mace Windu" 24 years later in Phantom Menace):

LUKE (CONT’D)
In another time, long before the Empire, and before the Republic had been formed, a holy man called the Skywalker became aware of a powerful energy field which he believed influenced the destiny of all living creatures…

BIGGS
The “FORCE OF OTHERS”!

LUKE
Yes, and after much study, he was able to know the force, and it communicated with him. He came to see things in a new way. His “aura” and powers grew very strong. The Skywalker brought a new life to the people of his system, and became one of the founders of the Republic Galactica.

WINDY
The “FORCE OF OTHERS” talked to him!?!

LUKE
In a manner different from the way we talk. As you know, the “FORCE OF OTHERS” has two halves: Ashla, the good, and Bogan, the paraforce or evil part. Fortunately, Skywalker came to know the good half and was able to resist the paraforce; but he realized that if he taught others the way of the Ashla, some, with less strength, might come to know Bogan, the dark side, and bring unthinkable suffering to the Universe.

For this reason, the Skywalker entrusted the secret of THE FORCE only to his twelve children, and they in turn passed on the knowledge only to their children, who became known as the Jedi Bendu of the Ashla: “the servants of the force”. For thousands of years, they brought peace and justice to the galaxy. At one time there were several hundred Jedi families, but now there are only two or three.

surely someone on the internet has done a lengthy dissertation on iphone as mother box

http://pulphope.blogspot.com/2007/06/mother-box.html

OK, you're right, George Lucas is a worse writer than Stan Lee

George Lucas : Jar Jar Binks :: Jack Kirby : Flippa Dippa

http://www.armagideon-time.com/img/110819/0819a.jpg

Guys, guys. The Masters of the Universe movie is the Kirby New Gods ripoff you're looking for. There were even boom tubes!

Taking this needlessly seriously, Lucas is much closer to Kirby than he is to Lee - both George and Jack are bricolagists, to borrow Levi-Strauss' term (and of course Joseph Campbell is kind of like a Stan Lee-version of Levi-Strauss) I don't think it diminishes Kirby's creative powers to acknowledge that he was highly receptive to popular films, tv, books - and especially popular science-type mags, where he got most of his collage images - and both Kirby and Lucas have, yes, deeply-ingrained pulp tastes and sympathies. There are even similarities to their 'late work' - that same sense of hermetic sealed-offness from the niceties of conventional storytelling.

And Lucas knew his comics, didn't he - I seem to remember that he was pretty closely involved with the original Marvel Star Wars comic book, and both Kirby and Lucas are known to be admirers of Alex Raymond's work on Flash Gordon. As someone pointed out there are definite Doctor Doom-like elements to Vader, so I really don't think it's that far-fetched to see some Kirby elements in Star Wars, just as you can see Kirby processing Star Wars and Close Encounters in his own 1970s comics.

Have I mentioned that I have a secret agenda, one that I've thoroughly thought out and also stolen, that I've intended all doing to unleash on this corner of the internet? You're laughing now ...

You should write a book.

Hey I watched the trailer again, I think this movie is going to be good fun.

can we stay off-topic, please

Pretty sure Ditko did quite a few fanzine interviews in the 60s, maybe 3 to 5 but they were all quite short.

Eric Stanton claimed he had significant input on Spiderman (mainly the webshooters I think). Recently his daughter backed up those claims in Creativity Of Ditko. Personally I thought it sounded quite credible.

Personally I wish Ditko and Kirby did all their main work with Joe Gill and none of their work turned into films, cartoons and toys. Or that Kirby went with Ditko in 66 and made that company (although that could have been a myth)Ditko proposed and hopefully it would have suceeded. American comic industry as it is seems like a horrible alternate reality we are stuck with.

Is that Stanton's daughter claiming that her father created Spider-Man's webshooters? Or did Stanton himself claim it somewhere and his daughter is now 'backing up' his claim? Either way, I'm sceptical, to say the least.

Joe Gill? Seriously?

As the dude who started the thread, I gotta say, yeah, the trailer does look fun.

With that out of the way, what do you guys (who know/care - passionately! - about this more than I do) make of Kirby and the Kirby estate's claims that he is also the sole creator of Spider-Man?

that has been argued about somewhere on ILX, I forget where - iirc we determined that he may have had some input into the costume and that's about it. I had thought there was more to it than that but was proved wrong.

or did he do some layouts for the first issue that got thrown out? feel like I'm forgetting something

That's what struck me as tragic about Kirby. There is no denying his talent or influence. There is no denying his creativity. But his bitterness, justified or no, did seem to get the better of him, and perhaps he became too fervent about sole ownership that he overreached a little. Because he did claim, a few times, that he was also the creator of Spider-man, and his family has included Spider-man in their lawsuits. Which unfortunately degrades his case a little, because as muddy as his claims are on the other titles - in the legal sense, not saying he doesn't deserve his credit - his connection to Spider-man is more tenuous.

Kirby fans, what do you think his estate deserves?

I found this:

http://io9.com/5363689/who-created-spider-man

Which at the least has this cool Ditko illustration:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_ku-medium/17jcpbcc4cm21jpg.jpg

Also a great, err, illustration of the Ditko/Lee conflict.

Plus, the normal considerations of who the "creator" of a comics character is, Ditko's claims are informed as much by his Objectivism as by the mores of the industry.

OMG, see, I just read that book and I already totally forgot he was an Ayn Rand acolyte!

As I say, Kirby made the claim chiefly in a rather (factually) unreliable very late interview with the Comics Journal, and said it within the context of an all-out attack on Stan Lee and Marvel Comics. It's worth pointing out in all this that, leaving aside greed and glory-grabbing and all the rest, both Lee and Kirby had truly atrocious memories.

I mean, Kirby did pencil the first Spider-Man cover, as well as a few other interior pin-ups etc; and he did create, with Joe Simon, a character called The Fly just a couple of years before Spider-Man made his debut:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Adventures_of_the_Fly_no_1.png

But no, there's no real credible evidence that he had anything to do with Spider-Man's creation, as such. I can quite believe that Stan came up with the name Spider-Man - Lee had a bit of a thing for animal-named characters anyway, hence Spider-Man fighting The Lizard, The Rhino, The Vulture etc - and then handed it over to Ditko to visualise (ditto 'Doctor Strange'). The soap opera content of even the early Spider-Man strips is much closer to Lee's sensibility than it is to Ditko's (or Kirby's). I don't think anyone has ever really established when the 'Marvel Style' took hold, but certainly at some point Ditko was entirely plotting Spider-Man, and Lee dialoguing and editing it.

One final thing before I let this thread return to its main topic - long after Kirby's departure, new artists were instructed to draw in the Kirby manner. Even the top tier of Marvel artists, people like John Buscema, John Romita, Gene Colan and Gil Kane, who already had well-established careers in comics by the time they drew for Marvel, studied and copied Kirby's dynamic storytelling/composition. Quite often Kirby would be assigned by Stan to provide basic breakdowns/plots for older, stiffer artists like Werner Roth, so that they could get a feel for the Marvel style. His work is everywhere at Marvel, even when you can't see it...or see a credit.

Oh for sure, and that's in the book, too. Stan Lee never, never detracts from Kirby, and in fact offers him up as an exemplar. For decades! That's perhaps why, to some, Lee, for all his general worthlessness, often comes off better than Kirby, for all his genius. In a world of eccentrics and malcontents, he maybe understood the importance of image off the page, though his ambitions rarely appears overtly Machiavellian, imo. He's a company man through and through, though by the end even Stan Lee is suing.

OK, one more post - this is from Kirby biographer Mark Evanier's the F.A.Q. about Jack:

Did Jack design Spider-Man's costume?

No. Steve Ditko designed the distinctive costume we all know and love. Jack did claim to have presented the idea to Stan Lee of doing a hero named Spiderman (no hyphen) who walked on walls and had other spider-themed powers — a claim which Stan vociferously denies.

But for all the things Jack did well, he was not great at being interviewed. He occasionally got carried away or confused. There was one interview where, without realizing what he was saying, he said he'd created Superman. Needless to say, he never really believed that but somehow, that's what came out of his mouth.

This kind of thing most often occurred when the topic veered near an instance where Jack felt he'd been undercredited and undercompensated, and Spider-Man was such a case. In at least one such conversation, he misspoke and claimed he'd designed the costume for the final version of Spider-Man. I'm guessing the gaffe had something to do with the fact that he did pencil the cover of Amazing Fantasy #15 with the first appearance of that costume. There were a number of cases where Jack designed a character on a cover, and then Don Heck or Dick Ayers or someone else drew the interior story, following his design. In this case, however, the cover was drawn after Stan had rejected one drawn wholly by Ditko.

Jack knew that. And he also knew what it was like to have someone else claim credit for your ideas. So he very much regretted the error.

http://www.newsfromme.com/writings/the-jack-faq/4/

Big digression: Evanier = Isaac Asimov to me. Workmanlike, prolific, seems never to have had a moment of writer's block in his life, nice clean prose style, occasionally very good but never brilliant.

Stanton and Ditko were together from late 50s to late 60s I think (roughly a decade anyway) and they helped each other with their work. In an interview Stanton said he suggested the webshooter idea and assisted in creating fight scenes. It wasnt a lot and Stanton never tried to convince anyone and seemed to want to respect Ditko's wishes to not tell people about their time together. Some people think Gwen Stacy is based on the Sweeter Gwen bondage character that they collaborated on.
His daughter Amber Stanton felt she should talk up the small contribution to the creation of Spiderman. Neither claimed that he made some massive redesign like Bill Finger did for Bob Kane. Ditko was like god to me when I was a teen, but the more I read about him, the more it seemed that he was dishonest and obtuse with some people, even though he was generally a good guy in most situations. But the fight scenes during that era are more elaborate and I think most people believe Ditko lies about his inking on the Stanton bondage art.

Joe Gill was one of the most prolific writers in comics (possibly a runner up to the record breaking Paul S Newman) but now and then I think he produced memorable stories with ambiguous, mysterious endings. This may be faint praise but he was more concise and smooth than other writers of the era. I think he written more varied plots too. The 50s-70s is probably my favorite era for art, but those comics are mostly a horrendous chore in terms of dialogue/captions; and he stuck out in my mind as a guy who got out of the way a bit more and didnt overwrite things.
I dont know why anyone would prefer Stan Lee to Joe Gill. Stan Lee has the business/cheerleading skills to make Marvel characters famous, but as I say above, I'm not sure that's anything to celebrate. As a writer he forgotten characters names (Peter Palmer, Robert Banner anyone?, which is why he preferred allitterative names), he praised his best artists for not needing any dialogue to tell the story yet added unecessary chunks of it (my theory is that that a lot of american comics writers were conscious of reassuring parents about kids reading wordier comics and/or that the writers sometimes wanted to make their presence felt more and overdid it), he also repeated names, ideas and pieces of dialogue quite a lot(he always admitted he has a really bad memory). I've seen Stan Lee write well, but he tended to overdo things.

Also Stan Lee seems to have said that Ditko basically created Dr Strange or submitted the concept or something like that.

Did Kirby suffer from any sort of mental illness?

I don't think so, he just suffered from laserlike focus on the page in front of him.

Proving Ditko's creation of Iron Man's red/yellow costume and Hulk's anger transformations are a lot harder to verify. I've totally forgotten exactly what Bill Everett did in creating Daredevil and if Kirby was involved in that at all.

Even though I occasionally jump into these discussions, getting into a Comics Journal site pissing match over who deserves credit for what is something I dont have nearly as much enthusiasm for anymore (tied to me having a lot less reverence for these comics) and I've forgotten a lot of things. I dont have it in me anymore to be the guy who reads every issue of Alter Ego and chases down facts anywhere they can.

half-hour xpost:

With that out of the way, what do you guys (who know/care - passionately! - about this more than I do) make of Kirby and the Kirby estate's claims that he is also the sole creator of Spider-Man?

nobody takes this seriously, and as Ward notes, that TCJ interview has both Kirby plainly overreaching for rhetorical effect, and, at almost 70, remembering so erratically that Roz is present to keep him on track; but of course adding fiery bias in the middle of the art return situation.

Evanier has also noted that Kirby was never good at linear conversation, because his mind was always going in too many directions at once; that sometimes Jack would pick up in the middle of a conversation from months or years before, and one wouldn't realise until later that he'd said something useful and profound, as opposed to a baffling non-sequitur.

I think most people believe Ditko lies about his inking on the Stanton bondage art.

One presumes that Ditko simply thinks of himself as not deserving any credit for this work, hence denying it. (Or that since he chose not to be credited, that choice should stand.)

That is a possibility and I've seen people state that theory but the way people have described Ditko's response to that question makes it sound as if he flat out denies any involvement.

Are you Charles Hatfield by any chance?

I'm Steve Ditko by the way

I'm actually Stan Lee. I'm very hurt by most of the comments in this thread

You stole my user name, jerk.

I was Number None years ago, back when I was called No One's Numb. But I came up with the original idea first.

I'm Nien Nunb and you all ripped my jowly ass off.

In 1987, Ditko was presented a Comic-Con International Inkpot Award in absentia, accepted on his behalf by Renegade Press publisher Deni Loubert, who had published Ditko's World the previous year. Ditko refused the award, and returned it to Loubert after having phoned her to say, "Awards bleed the artist and make us compete against each other. They are the most horrible things in the world. How dare you accept this on my behalf". At his behest, Loubert returned the award to the convention organizers.

Oh, Ditko anecdotes. imo if Ditko didn't want credit for something, it's because he felt he didn't do the full thing, or that taking credit would imply he was taking credit from someone else

Aldo: Seven Soldiers is entirely in the Kirbyverse

Nah – Vigilante’s Mort Meskin (in the ‘40s – rest of the first issue characters also date this far back, though I dunno who created them), Shining Knight was Creig Flessel (also 1941), Zatanna was Gardner Fox and Urphy Manderson and obv derived from Fred Guardineer’s Zatara, Frankenstein was Mary Shelley et alias, Bulleteer is Morrison’s own. Obv lots of Kirby too! But not even in a New Godsian Kirbyverse – Guardian was S&K in the 40s, Klarion is from The Demon, not Fourth World.


Dorian: I'm looking for a decent account of the late 80s/early 90s bubble

Eric Reynolds did the best (basically the only) reporting on the destruction of the bubble post-Marvel buying Heroes World, including being the only person to get the deal memo that allowed DC to buy Diamond. You want Newswatch sections in TCJs around 1995 for this; they sell a year’s subscription to the scanned archives. Michael Dean did a long multi-part examination of the formation and swelling of Image around 2000, again in TCJ. And the third part of this free-to-read Dean piece might be of some primer interest: http://classic.tcj.com/history/a-comics-journal-history-of-the-direct-market-part-one/



All JiC:

One way it seems Marvel did vindictively screw Kirby is by withholding his original art, but that apparently came well after things became acrimonious and totally lawyered up.

Yeah, they didn’t hold onto a few hundred pieces of his thousands of pieces of ‘60s art until 25 years later, this makes sense.

Was Stan Lee making money that Kirby should have been making? The book, at least, implied that Lee wasn't getting royalties or anything, either, stolen or shared credit or no.

Lee was on a salary as well, and in a position of power. And as I noted upthread, was on a stipend of a million a year as late as the ‘00s to go into court and lie outright about how no artist ever came up with anything themselves be a “goodwill ambassador” for Marvel. Lee also gets to put his name on and collect money from the Spider-Man newspaper strip to this day.

I found that hilarious in the book, how an artist from Marvel would depart or DC or wherever and then immediately recycle their characters with slightly different names to get a rise out of their old cohorts. Steve Gerber appeared notorious for this.

What did Gerber turn Man-Thing into at DC in the ‘70s? What did Gerber turn Omega The Unknown into at DC in the 70s? What similarities do you think Howard The Duck and Destroyer Duck had, beyond not being called Howard The Person and Destroyer Dude?

but worked exclusively as a writer, so had a harder time hopping around from company to company doing freelance inking or whatever.

Yeah, no writer in the history of comics has ever been able to work for more than one company at once, because it’s so much more time-laborious to write a comic – especially Marvel-style - than to draw 24 pages. And Claremont didn’t buy a private jet with his X-Men royalties.

If I had my way, artists would retain the rights of their creations and get paid for it, but that's not how it works, not in comics

King Features Syndicate. Universal Press Syndicate. Register And Tribune Syndicate. The Village Voice. Private Eye. Harvey Comics. Warren Publishing. The Print Mint. Last Gasp. Apex Novelties. Rip Off Press. Kitchen Sink Press. Company & Sons. The East Village Other. Oz. Knockabout Press. Quality Comics. Aardvark-Vanaheim. Eclipse Publishing. First Comics. NBM. Capital Comics. Fantagraphics Books, Inc. Dark Horse Comics. Renegade Press. Slave Labor Graphics. Atomeka. Deadline. Drawn & Quarterly. Spider-Baby Comics & Graphics. Tundra Publishing. L’Asso. Oog & Blik. Alternative Comics. Fat Man Press. Antarctic Press. Image Comics. Cartoon Books. Bongo Comics. Tragedy Strikes. Double Diamond. Highwater Books. Oni Press. Top Shelf. Buenaventura Press. Picturebox. Koyama Press. Pigeon Press. Oily Comics. Retrofit Books. That’s top of the head*, but I can go on after you refute these.

*I had to check Fat Man Press, tipping the hat to Ward’s location

I get it, dude. I'm happy to be called out as wrong or inaccurate or whatever. Again, no dog in this fight, and I'm glad there are people like you who care about this more than I do. But the arts are absolutely clogged with people taken advantage of, or taking advantage of, or stealing, or being stolen from, or otherwise not getting what they deserve or think they deserve. Millionaires suing for more millions, paupers suing for pennies. Money corrupts everything. Really, you take this so much more seriously than I do, so much more passionately, so much more personally - which is cool, advocate/argue away - that I'm fine saying ... I consider you to be 100% right in every regard.

In the case of the Stanton/Ditko stuff, I really dont think that was the issue. I dont think anyone was under the impression he was the sole author of those. But maybe someone thought he was the sole author and he denied it because some of them almost look like he was going solo. He tends to be incredibly precise in stating what his contribution to anything was (unlike everyone else around him, he seems to remember everything), everyone is used to the amount of collaboration (although I have been wondering if assistants in japanese comics arent a bit too hidden). There are images in that stuff that look like he was doing a large amount of drawing. Some pencillers work very loose (I think they call that "Breakdowns" sometimes) including himself (which is why other people inking him tended to look like a horrible clash of styles).
I'd love a complete book of that Stanton/Ditko but those comics were extremely rare (and it might really piss off Ditko if a book like that is sold largely on his name). Fantagraphics reprinted a couple and the Greg Theakston/Pure Imagination books did some too, but they arent always easy to find.

Someone else on the issue (with comments from Steve Bissette)...
http://fourrealities.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/interminable-examination-of.html

cormics

mervil

stab l ee

I consider you to be 100% right in every regard.

Josh in Chicago's breath smells and he has a stupid haircut.

Don't forget the cooties! I caught them from the comics.

But it was just a casual thing.

Sick, dude, sick.

xp Thanks sic. That's really helpful.

Huh, I had no idea the Kirby kids lost their most recent appeal last year:

http://comicsbeat.com/marvel-wins-appeal-by-in-lawsuit-brought-by-jack-kirbys-heirs/

Reading the (generally measured) comments under that link, this whole tale is wrapped up as much in the embarrassment that is US copyright law as it is artists rights, so it's probably fitting that Disney bought Marvel, given their historic (mouse) hands in the broader legal mess.

That said, folks above who rightly or wrongly dismissed Kirby's claims to Spider-man as the egged-on rants of an agitated '70s year-old, how does that explain Spider-man's repeated appearances in legal claims made by his estate after his passing? Again, no agenda here. Assume, as many of you do, that I am pursuing this from a position of absolute ignorance.

Overreach? I don't think anyone is saying that legally Jack Kirby or his estate have a bulletproof case, only that he and other (co-)creators were screwed over.

The point that their work was for hire, for a corporation, might ring fairly true in 2014. But the piece you're missing is that comics weren't that profitable of a business, and surely not a large corporate business, when Jack Kirby and others started out, and as Marvel grew, he was made a number of promises or assurances that were repeatedly ignored or reneged on.

It might mean nothing legally, but the bad faith actions undertaken over the course of _decades_ toward Kirby and others is gross. A lot of that falls on Stan Lee, because as the public face of Marvel and their actual employee (as opposed to contract worker) he got a lot of sweetheart deals where he was paid extra for being a creator, or credited for works, where others were not.

Oh, totally, no question. And that sucks. But as one of those comments in that thing I linked (which goes into great detail about copyright and the nature of work for hire, post 1909 and post-76 or whenever) put it:

The lesson of DC stealing Superman is to always watch out for your own interests because people will screw you. The lesson of Kirby and Marvel is a far more complicated one than that.

I think what we're getting at is you're painting Kirby as a complete incompetent about business affairs and cherry-picking to justify that and it's irritating.

No, what I'm painting Kirby as is absolutely not unique in his situation, despite the magnitude of his contributions. If he were completely ignorant about business affairs it would appear that he was taken advantage of in a predatory fashion. What he is, imo, is a high profile victim of onerous but unfortunately legally established policy.

That is, there's a conflict at work here between what's ethical and legal, and the two don't always resolve.

The point that their work was for hire, for a corporation, might ring fairly true in 2014.

Not "might" or "fairly" but this is HOW BUSINESS IS DONE in creative fields for most work. Contract work, signing over your IP rights, signing non-competition agreements, etc. This is how things are done now, with everyone paranoid about copyright law and stuff. It would be ridiculous to imagine that 30/40 years ago it was any better.

Absolutely sad and true.

I think that, prior to Marvel, Kirby had largely been protected by his business/creative partner Joe Simon, who was no fool when it came to things like copyright etc.

I think what we're getting at is you're painting Kirby as a complete incompetent about business affairs and cherry-picking to justify that and it's irritating.

ehh, he kinda was incompetent, inasmuch as he had a total "artist's brain" and didn't have the mindset to dedicate himself to business matters.

What he is, imo, is a high profile victim of onerous but unfortunately legally established policy.

see upthread - Marvel didn't introduce WFH until the '70s, and then in legally-dubious back-of-the-cheque form. Gerber would routinely cross it out.

Not "might" or "fairly" but this is HOW BUSINESS IS DONE in creative fields for most work. Contract work, signing over your IP rights, signing non-competition agreements, etc. This is how things are done now, with everyone paranoid about copyright law and stuff. It would be ridiculous to imagine that 30/40 years ago it was any better.

see previous, and also please go through my list of publishers and syndicates upthread and explain how each of those ever existed.

inasmuch as he had a total "artist's brain" and didn't have the mindset to dedicate himself to business matters.

cf how by-all-accounts happy he was at Ruby-Spears, churning out endless demented presentation drawings (for Woodring to ink!), none of which had a hope of ever making it to screen, but being paid well to do so.

how each of those never existed.

Hello, my name is Professor Shabazz K. Morton. In 1895, at the Tuskagee Institute in Alabama, a black man named George Washington Carver developed a new method of soil improvement through crop rotation to end the South African cultural dependence on cotton alone. As a result, Carver came up with hundreds of industrial uses for the peanut. Sure, industrial uses.

Meanwhile, one night, he's having a few friends over to his house for dinner. And one of them leans over and says to Dr. Carver, "Excuse me, George? What's that you're putting on your bread?" Carver says, "Oh, that's nothing but a butter substitute that I made from peanuts. I can't digest all that animal fat, you know." So the other fellow tasted it, and he says, "Hmm, this tastes pretty good, man. Mind if we take a peek at the recipe?" And Dr. Carver says, "Take a peek? Man, you can have it. Who's gonna eat butter made out of peanuts? No, I'm working on a method to compress peanuts into phonograph needles."

So, Professor Carver's two dinner guests, Edward "Skippy" Williamson and Frederick "Jif" Armstrong - two white men - stole George Washington Carver's recipe for peanut butter, copyrighted it, and reaped untold fortunes from it. While Dr. Carver died penniless and insane, still trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut.

This has been "Black History Minute". I'm Professor Shabazz K. Morton. Good night.

http://vimeo.com/8904532

That's pretty impressive, to have invented peanut butter 11 years after it was patented.

http://www.google.com/patents/US306727

those... were funny sketches but really have nothing to do with this situation

At least they're funny, which is an improvement.

:)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/7749ec24a33b3b47859f81d4f80298a6/tumblr_mrfpxlVZrh1qhmu4uo1_400.gif

There, that's better, too!

^ Not a racoon btw.

I reiterate that I'm still really hoping for a Peter Quill origin story where they show some asshole aliens blowing up his house and killing his mom

New trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUnYMggxy4

You know at least a couple of moments in the trailer are giving me a Fifth Element vibe, and I am MORE than fine with that.

So many comic book movies to get to. I still never got around to the Captain America and Spider-Man sequels, and now X-Men is this weekend...

so the bad guy is ronan the accuser?
why all the 70's pop rock?

OK, so since starting the thread I guess I've come around a bit, since I'm sick of all the serious, solemn stuff. Still, if this thing is a big hit, Hollywood should just throw out its how-to books. Or re-release "John Carter of Mars" like it never happened.

i'm pretty sure "be a marvel movie" is like #1 in the how-to books

Very different feel from the international trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CqymRQ1uUU

The Lego sets are out, but you'll need to cough up a bit if you want the Rocket/Groot minifigs

this is looking like a ton of fun now

that trailer is not good

It gets better when the jokes pop up.

yeah i was into the earlier trailers but i guess more-banter/fewer-explosions is too much to ask from a marvel summer blockbuster

i watched some of super to get hype for this but it turns out that movie is awful

they took out all the klassik rock

boooooooooo

still looking forward to this though

I am Groot.

(is the new "Hodor")

Groot Is the New Hodor, Netflix's latest etc.

Soundtrack cover art:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--yRoI4dQH--/xqo3h41zzwpppeyw8ymm.jpg

lol

Is Everything is Awesome on it?

excellent

More on the soundtrack via io9.com

And it's not the usual set of instrumentals. At all. Instead, in keeping with what we've seen in the trailers, it's mixtape of the past. Spoiler warning!

Yes, director James Gunn himself warns that the tracklist could constitute spoilers. And here it is:

1. Blue Swede - Hooked on a Feeling
2. Raspberries - Go All the Way
3. Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky
4. David Bowie - Moonage Daydream
5. Elvin Bishop - Fooled Around and Fell in Love
6. 10Cc - I'm Not in Love
7. Jackson 5 - I Want You Back
8. Redbone - Come and Get Your Love
9. The Runaways - Cherry Bomb
10. Rupert Holmes - Escape (The Pina Colada Song)
11. The Five Stairsteps - O-O-H Child
12. Marvin Gaye/Tammi Terrell - Ain't No Mountain High Enough

lol nice

Cool that people in the far future still get their music taste from Q Magazine.

what gives you the impression any of this is "far future"?

afaik it's contemporary

Star Wars, a movie renowned for being set in a galaxy, took place in the distant past.

In the several clips shown (out of context, and occasionally with unfinished special effects), it was Chris Pratt’s Peter ‘Star-Lord’ Quill who took centre stage. The first sequence was set in 1988, as an eight-year-old Quill storms from his house, following an argument with his parents. He’s barely had a chance to fall on his knees and start weeping before he’s taken away from the misty night by an alien spacecraft that suddenly blinks into view. The only possession he has with him? A backpack loaded with ‘80s memorabilia, including his Walkman.

Following that, we leap 26 years ahead to the abandoned planet of Morag, for a fuller look at the scene that been a key fixture of the trailers, as Quill (now in Chris Pratt form) is on the hunt for an orb to steal.

Oh ok fair enough.

Win free tickets for a 17 minute IMAX preview at London’s Empire Leicester Square

Oh christ imagine being willing to drag your arse to Leicester Square just for 17 minutes. I hate Leicester Square.

wait does q magazine write about rupert holmes and blue swede alot?

I'm just happy the Raspberries get some dosh/exposure from this

Extended trailer for UK/Europe is great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9vypfwbvk

It's an unintended consequence, but the better the trailer, the lower my expectations.

If you see only one talking raccoon movie this year . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PylzJIyRSmw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTcjzaqL0pE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1kHfG0qrk0

FP'ed you for that Jack Johnson jftr

Looked like a talking raccoon to me, my bad.

Again, suspicious the best stuff is being parceled out as bait, but ... each time they do it there's more good stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzI-U1Fh9zc#t=255

So a single pair of AA batteries has lasted 25 years? I mean, what are we, to believe that this is some sort of a, a magic Walkman or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

this looks super irritating

You probably shouldn't buy a ticket to see this particular film, then.

agree with josh

Jimmy otm, the smug tone of this = blech

xps yeah that's why i'm avoiding these clips, tbh

this is already my movie of the year i'm not sure i even need to see it or any other movie ever god movies suck

You probably shouldn't buy a ticket to see this particular film, then.

― Mouthfuls of Marinara (Old Lunch), Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:02 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I made the same comment about Precious so... touché

Didn't know Zoe's character had ties to Thanos. Interested in this "mythology".

Go buy the Jim Starlin Warlock trade and/or Inifinity Gauntlet/War and/or the newly-released Annihilation omnibus for more background on the "mythology". Who knows how much of that material will actually make it to the silver screen. But it's mostly top tier mainstream comics stuff.

the infinity gauntlet/war stuff was out when I was like 12 years old so its my favorite comic book shit ever.

thanos had A LOT of kids and then spent a lot of time hunting down and killing most of them.

this looks kinda wack. i loved the abnett guardians stuff but this looks real humor-by-committee. also batista, bradley cooper AND the dipshit from parks and recreation is not a good combo.

I'm glad someone found something ostensibly funny for John C. Reilly to do in these stupid movies but everyone else is p loathsome. Bradley Cooper should be shot out of a cannon.

this thread just ate my afternoon

and this movie will be fly as fuck fuck h8rs

dgaf about comics and clips herein are laugh devoid

pratt's clips from the bin laden movie are funnier

it's a hermetically sealed kind of humor. a talking RACOON!?! I'm dying ovah heah

xp

hoos otm

yeah tbh "what a bunch of a-holes" has been the only laugh i've gotten but i'm just excited for the marvel universe getting more unwieldy

It could be loads of fun, or it could go as far off the rails as Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. Not going to get too wound up about trailers.

review embargo lifted today -- initial reviews sound uniformly positive

i'm increasingly psyched for this. i wound up catching cap'n 2 at the tail end of its run, but i haven't made a point to see any freshly released supermovies since The Wolverine, but might make an exception for this

big pratt fan and ready for him to cement his movie stardom w/ this. guardian was somewhat mild on it but compared it to fifth element and galaxy quest. have been stoked for awhile but alot of that was due to what else was out there this summer.

maybe in the marvel universe where this movie doesn't end up being a total bomb
(note: i love chris pratt)

you thought guardian was mild? it sounded pretty positive to me--compared it favorably to previous marvel outings as a relatively light and fun blowupy thing.

3 out of 5

Clearly John Carter of Mars should have gone comedy.

or marketed itself better or not relied on century old branding to carry the day

3 out of 5

― balls, Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah but the actual review seemed a little more buoyant, i actually thought there was something of a disconnect

I'm happy the Raspberries are getting some money/exposure from this, at least

love that song

i really wish they'd do a luke cage movie and then hire me to do the entire soundtrack i basically have it all plotted anyway just waiting by the phone

he & Iron Fist are getting a tv show, so they're starting somewhere. We need a young Lynne Thigpen to do Misty Knight, tho

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2010/12/misty-knight.jpg

oh damn i forgot :( my ideas would not work in a tv show

also they probably also have other people working on it, who are not 26 year old failures

Have we posted the midnight opening giveaway half-poster?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10489920_627709604010732_2038832220919601521_n.jpg?oh=6d35cae9c9664fe7d7ba4ca60b9482f8&oe=5436E733&__gda__=1414046906_fab895fbea9cca6eedd9f7e0e96ab6d0

dorb.

That poster is pretty nice.

big pratt fan and ready for him to cement his movie stardom w/ this.

2nded. was all 0_0 upthread when someone was like "it stars that dips hit from parks and rec". like how heartless/tone-deaf would you have to be to hate Andy??

he & Iron Fist are getting a tv show, so they're starting somewhere. We need a young Lynne Thigpen to do Misty Knight, tho

― Stephen King's Threaderstarter (kingfish), Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:49 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fingers crossed for this.

Oh shit, I didn't even know she was dead

To clarify, my fingers are crossed for the success of the Power Man & Iron Fist show, not for that particular casting.

to be honest given how shitty Agents Of Shield is i'm not that excited for daredevil / power man etc shows :-(

Agents of Shield got way, way better halfway through the season IMO

I only caught the last few episodes. It was really enjoyable to me.

Once CapAm2 happened and they incorporated that plotline into the show, it accelerated into awesome

Wasn't that for, like, the last two or three eps?

trying to rewatch from the start but the first two episodes are just total zero-charisma Torchwood lite. And Torchwood is the work of satan.

The last 6. The show started improving steadily around episode 8 and was great by episode 16, which is the CapAm2 turning point.

I'm quickly learning that arguing in favor of Agents of SHIELD with people who've already written it off is a total lost cause. Their loss.

I mean, it's not the world's greatest show and I feel no particular need to martyr myself over it but I never disliked it and it got much, much better as it went along and the story got more interesting.

That pretty much mirrors my feelings. It's just somewhat baffling when I talk to someone who I assume would be inclined towards exactly this sort of show but is vehemently dismissive of it. My girlfriend is literally the only other person I know who likes it (thankfully).

Guess I should finally start digging into our DVR backlog for that show then. We were keeping up with it, but gave up about 6 episodes in.

these days if a drama doesn't grip me by episode 2 i let the rest of the world get back to me about whether i should try again the next season. if i do, and its turned awesome, i can always go back and check out the pupal stage

so yeah i might give B-roll of SHIELD another go this fall

i struggled through the first six and then jettisoned. I think I still have a tivo sub and the last episode; I'll probably give it a shot again next season.
http://www.cwtv.com/cw-video/the-flash
i'm vaguely hopeful about this but i still miss the 80's flash. :/
http://www.comics101.com/comics101//images/view.php%3Fsrc%3D../news/Comics%20101/26/flashtvshow.jpg%26w%3D

weather wizard, star labs, untwisting a hurricane by running backwards around it, mostly good stuff there.
costume seems a bit too dark imo

like how heartless/tone-deaf would you have to be to hate Andy??

ilx

he's owned me since "where are the faces?"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/girl-geek-behind-guardians-galaxy-721399

How did the program work exactly?
They had a list of about half a dozen lesser-known properties and they basically said, "Any of these that appeal to you, you can develop. And there's no guarantees that any of them will get made, but this is what your options are." I chose Guardians. There were other properties that were better known, but I was drawn to the science-fiction tone of that one.
So when people wonder why Guardians of the Galaxy of all Marvel properties is suddenly this summer's blockbuster, it's because you gravitated to it.
Right. I mean, it was on the list, but there were a lot of others on there too. I chose the one most in line with what I was interested in exploring. I wanted to explore the realm of Cosmic Marvel, and Guardians definitely was the most in line with those hopes.

Marvel don't own Rom, which is why it's never been reprinted

OKAY then it could have been squadron supreme or inhumans or warlock. We could have had dinklage as pip the troll mang! we probably still will.

They have the spaceknights, though, right? They've shown up in some of the cosmic adventures and in Age of Ultron.

Spaceknights, Dire Wraiths, everything but Rom himself, IIRC.

I've never actually seen a Rom toy...

oh yeah? they were a high price point item when i was a very little kid, made in direct response to star wars mania. it must've bombed because i only remember the one toy ever being made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILIaPluH4pc

got the comics, never saw the toy growing up or since tbh

you can imagine you can imagine you can imagine

"you can even imagine rom could save mommy from daddy and make the crying stop. rom comes with everything you see here, 9 volt battery not included, rom may not necessarily save mommy."

more than you ever wanted to know:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/comics/Rom/actionfig/index.shtml
the same dude made electronic battleship!
http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/comics/Rom/actionfig/mccoy.shtml

In the UK they were marketed alongside Action Man - our repackaging of the old 12" GI Joe figures. ROM was a buddy of his, I think. I coveted my neighbour's ROM but never had one of my own. I also remember really enjoying the comic book, and am bummed it will never be reprinted (see also the Marvel editions of Micronauts).

I read a comic in which ROM teamed up with The Thing that I remember being wicked.

Screw your ROM Spaceknights, we need this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Micronauts-1.jpg

So apparently the post-post-credits sequence leaked and it has Howard the Duck?

well with gerber dead i imagine he's a property a lot of writers would like to see back on screen so i'm not too shocked there.

Has Howard much in the way of appearances in the comics MU recently?

a property a lot of writers would like to see back on screen

I can't tell if you're being serious there or not.

On screen would mean possibly more demand for Howard comics, meaning more opportunities to write him...

I can't tell if you're being serious there or not.

Ty templeton did a pretty good howard miniseries back in 2010. In 2011 he was part of the "fearsome four" (alongside she-hulk, nighthawk and marvel's bastardized frankenstein monster) battling the man-thing, though that sucked. he's had a handful of other minor background showings in marvel zombies and as a punchline but the character has been mostly written out of continuity.

I don't think any writer other than Gerber could convey Howard's wauuughhs of outrage properly (and I don't think Marvel would publish the character if any writer got him right), so I hope we never see him again, film or print.

publish the story, I should say

i disagree on both points; not sure why howard is explicitly gerber's baby any more so than nobody but starlin gets to touch thanos. a good writer should be able to handle Howard fine; again, I thought the templeton books were fairly deft. And a cynical fourth-wall breaking character that's conscious it's in a movie/comic would be helpful to deflate some of the mu-movieverses pomposity

Kid Thanos was a little dodgy

As far as fourth-wall-breaking cynical characters go wld rather see this made tbh http://www.vulture.com/2014/07/test-footage-for-deadpool-movie-is-so-very-good.html?mid=twitter_vulture

i kinda hate the deathpool character as an nth generation "bacon! zombies! pirates!" lobo bro retread

Have now seen this movie. It is indeed good fun - moves fast, doesn't take itself too seriously, yadda yadda. It's very true to the spirit of Marvel Comics in that it isn't actually that far removed from Green Lantern, only the characters (the 'good guys', anyway) are a bit more fleshed out, a bit more humorous. Movie gives off a heavy Star Wars vibe in places - bickering banter on spaceships, cynical mercenary characters who redeem themselves when the chips are down, cowled villains with deep voices.

I will say that the advance hype abt this being 'daring and different' is seriously over-heated - it's still a CGI-heavy SF action-adventure that follows a fairly predictable narrative arc. The MOR mixtape stuff in it is a bit overdone, imho, especially in the climatic fight scene.

SPOILERS

You do indeed get Howard the Duck in the post-credits sequence. It's fine for what it is, and Steve Gerber and Val Mayerik get on-screen creator credits straight afterwards.

deadpool is the worst, how did a fucking rob liefeld character hang on this long

OTM

it's not like that was a big plot twist regarding the stinger, but.. not cool

Eh they'd already made inroads, is all. Maybe Lobo and Howard the Duck're way better choices, dunno

I disagree about Howard The Duck not being a creator specific character. I think Gerber didn't want anyone else touching Howard and some of his fellow creators frowned upon the idea too. Whenever a new Howard thing comes out, more people treat it like a transgression than any other character I can think of.

I might be wrong but I've heard Frank Miller doesn't like anyone else writing Elektra.

Cosmic Marvel? I think that's one thing they did (or at least a handful of their creators) that was ahead of the curve and original. Maybe if I had read more science fiction I'd know differently but the way Fantastic Four, Dr Strange, Silver Surfer, Warlock and Eternals were visualized seems like a real contribution to me.

I think Marvel would probably be reluctant to do something like Eternals when these Kirby court fights are going on.

Aren't Micronauts another toy property Marvel does not own?

So who owns Rom? Loved Rom and the Dire Wraiths.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Dire_Wraith_vs_Storm.jpg

You guys could try scrolling up.

Deadpool became great once Joe Kelly got his hands on him, fuiud.

A fair number of Liefeld characters became great in other writers hands fwiw

Yeah, the Duggan/Posehn Deadpool and Heavy Metal Hurlaut version of Prophet are great.

And this is why I don't run Hollywood: numbers indicating it's a blockbuster.

Manohla Dargis digs it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/movies/chris-pratt-stars-in-guardians-of-the-galaxy.html?_r=0

FOOLED AROUND AND FELLLLLLLLL IN LOVE

guys this was great

first time i wish i saw it in fake imax just for the sound, early 70s jams were not nearly loud enough

actually might see it again just for that

yep this was great. I think the end of credits sting was more to take the piss of the usual 'here is a cryptic clue of what happens in the next MCU film'.
there is no fucking way a Howard The Duck film would ever be made again - just the words Howard The Duck are a punchline to 99% of people.
so yeah, funny to see the whole cinema waiting patiently through the credits for a 5 second clip of something thats clearly nothing to do with the whole masterplan

That sounds p OTM. I may have no idea who Lobo is, but can I remember HTD being one of the biggest flops in movie history

there is no fucking way a Howard The Duck film would ever be made again

You say that NOW...

http://www.comicvine.com/lobo-the-duck/4005-49796/

Guy Ritchie was in consideration for Lobo.

Looking forward to taking kids to this this weekend -- assuming it's pretty OK for kids? They're on the young side for PG-13, but we've seen Godzilla and Thor Dark World, so I'm guessing there's nothing in here that will be more gruesome than those.

Zacharek hated it, inspiring such a run of sexist drivel that apparently her VV editor had to respond:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/07/a_note_to_the_guardians_of_the_galaxy_fans_who_are_calling_our_critic_a_harlot.php

Her original review.

xpost to tipsy

Yeah, lots of comic book violence and the odd bit of 'bad language', but nothing really v creepy or gory, you'll be fine.

Thanks! Considering that the 6-year-old has already been reprimanded for an F-bomb at his after-school program, probably won't be anything they haven't heard. We'll just have to have the "Just because it's in a movie doesn't mean you can say/do it" talk.

(I was legit shocked that he said that at school btw -- I didn't even know he knew the word.)

Kids learn that the word FUCK is bad around that age: there's always one renegade six-year-old per class (not your kid) writing it on any available surface.

yeah i was a little surprised at some of the bad language, though it's nothing they wouldn't hear on basic cable. loved this though not as much as the other chris pratt movie this year, i'll see it again but mainly just cuz it looks great, lots of color. nerd fanboys remain the most bizarrely entitled losers the world has known though so the abuse zacharek took isn't surprising (though crits whining about this is getting to be a bit rmde), when the tag at the end happend some nerd two rows back from us became very very emotionally angry at howard the duck's appearance, started shouting 'no marvel! no! too far!' like he was admonishing a dog (a talking dog perhaps, making non-pc jokes), his friends had to actually calm him down.

the co-creator and longtime writer of Ultimate Spider-Man, the single greatest mainstream superhero comic of the 2000s

enjoyed the zacharek review, she's a good writer. i still want to see this though.

xp: hahahahahaha

JFC at that Howard hater.

Obv comment box sexism is gross, but Zacharek keeps saying "it almost works, but doesn't" over and over and over without providing much in the way of concrete detail of what the space between "working" whimsy and "almost working" whimsy IS

at the end she finally notes there were corny non-swears

plus c'mon "a-hole" is funny

the review just feels half-baked, like all she may have had to say was "i don't need star wars, and i don't need this," but had to phrase in vague term of failure on their end

yeah the idea that actually saying 'asshole' in that context there would've been funnier is crazy, as is the idea that this movie would've been better if it had been more 'adult'.

like, yeah, it sucks that anonymous web denizens respond to dismissals of stuff they love (or even just assume they'll love) with cries of "slatternly trollop, back to the kitchen!" and whatnot, but i also think it sucks when critics talk about a film that's obviously set to float countless boats like its just obviously broken and someone should get fired, instead of explaining how it failed YOU. It's not that you have to like it, you just have to admit you live in a world where people do.

i don't think you really have to do the latter! an actual argument against 'fun' would've sufficed, this couldn't be bothered. it's the voice though and that might be as much space as they would allow for a 'movie review' so maybe expecting actual criticism is unfair.

yeah, you don't HAVE to, I'm just impressed by critics who manage to express why the movie was a turd for them while still noting the unique qualities that make it score with audiences. Kael's reviews of Star Wars and Halloween come to mind

Yeah, I heard Gunn interviewed this morning, and he just outright blurts that blockbusters are the only relevant movies being made today. Which of course initially made me bristle, but he defined "relevant" movies as basically "movies large numbers of people see in the theatre." So criticising movies designed to draw people into the theatres for being too much like movies designed to draw people into the theatres is a lame tack to take, as a critic. Better to stay focused on what makes it better, worse or the same as other movies designed to draw people into the theatre. I've read a few reviews of this so far that bend over backwards to qualify their praise, or undercut their complements, or generally do whatever they can do to talk about this as anything other than a big-budget movie based on a comic book. They'll talk about the costumes, the make-up, the effects, the beauty, pretty much anything it takes to avoid talking about it as a movie. Then again, I can also imagine getting burnt out writing about these things.

John Carpenter, who made the low-budget scare picture Halloween, has a visual sense of menace. He quickly sets up an atmosphere of fear, and his blue night tones have a fine, chilling ambience---the style is reminiscent of the Halloween episode in Minnelli's Meet Me in St. Louis. But Carpenter isn't very gifted with actors, and he doesn't seem to have any feeling at all for motivation or for plot logic. Halloween has a pitiful, amateurish script (by Carpenter and his producer, Debra Hill). An escaped lunatic wielding a kitchen knife stalks people in a small Midwestern town (Haddonfield, Illinois), and that's about it. There's no indication of why he selects any particular target; he's the bogeyman---pure evil---and he wants to kill. The film is largely just a matter of the camera tracking subjectively from the mad killer's point of view, leading you to expect something awful to happen. But the camera also tracks subjectively when he isn't around at all; in fact, there's so much subjective tracking you begin to think everybody in the movie has his own camera.

As a doctor from the lunatic asylum that the killer has escaped from, Donald Pleasence is solid and forceful; enunciating in the impeccable tradition of Lionel Atwill, he delivers idiotic exposition about e-vil. Sometimes you think he's going to have to cross his eyes to keep a straight face. Carpenter doesn't seem to have had any life outside the movies: one can trace almost every idea on the screen to directors such as Hitchcock and Brian De Palma and to the Val Lewton productions. It may even be that Carpenter selected Jamie Lee Curtis to be his pure heroine---the teen-age babysitter, Laurie---because she recalls the serious-faced little blond girl in The Curse of the Cat People. The daughter of Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis, Jamie Lee Curtis has a hoarse, low, rather inexpressive voice and a plaintive Lauren Bacall-ish look and an attractive gaucheness. For no discernible reason, the bogeyman (who is masked) zeroes in on her near the start of the picture, but he keeps being sidetracked. He has no trouble picking off the teen-agers who "fool around;" only Laurie has the virginal strength to put up a fight.

There's one really neat effect: near the beginning, when the madman is driving past, the more brash teen-age girls jeer at him, and the car pauses for an instant, as if the masked figure inside were deciding whether to dispatch the girls right then or bide his time. But Carpenter also wrote the score himself---all four bars--and he's devoted to it. With the seductive tracking shots and the repetitive music, the film stops and starts so many times before anything happens that the bogeyman's turning up just gets to be a nuisance---it means more of the same. Carpenter keeps you tense in an undifferentiated way---nervous and irritated rather than pleasurably excited---and you reach the point of wanting somebody to be killed so the film's rhythms will change. Yet a lot of people seem to be convinced that Halloween is something special---a classic. Maybe when a horror film is stripped of everything but dumb scariness---when it isn't ashamed to revive the stalest device of the genre (the escaped lunatic)---it satisfies part of the audience in a more basic, childish way than sophisticated horror pictures do.

I'm sure this review would get plenty of "i wiggle my peen at thee, wench!" but for her transparent lack of enthusiasm you can tell she was paying attention

ok if "relevance" means "movies large numbers of people see in the theatre" than "blockbusters are the only relevant movies being made today" is a completely meaningless statement.

nerds just get so touchy when their precious anticipated blockbusters' RT scores get dinged

xpost Well, I dunno about that. The argument I suppose is that they are the only movies large numbers of people will all have in common, so they're worth discussing as more than just dismissible spectacle. At least, when they are more than just dismissible spectacle. I guess. But these movies transcend mere nerd-fodder, I think, to a significant degree, for whatever reason. They are cultural touchstones at this point, for better or for worse but ultimately no different than Star Wars. Has Hercules come out yet? That seems a little more standard issue.

tbf i have no idea what he was reacting to, i'm just saying that if relevance is defined as popularity in theaters then yes blockbusters are the only theatrically popular movies being made. whether their "worthy of discussion as more than spectacle" seems like a different issue

hercules got smacked down by scarjo last week

but then i'm not sure how you're defining blockbuster - i thought it means "a big hit"

I really have no doubt Kael would just refuse to review this endless adolescent shit if she were in her prime today, or just quit.

also otm on John Carpenter

let's not forget, it was oliver stone she gave the final middle finger to, and scenes from a mall she said broke her heart. the adolescent shit wasn't her cup of tea, but its the grown-ups who disappointed her

she loved temple of doom and gunga din, i wouldn't be sure she'd be mad at marvel

Those two movies have traces of things outside of fantasy life.

racism?

among other things

she was unpredictable re blockbusters. She didn't like Ghostbusters and her complaints amounted to "Look how expensive it says it was in the press release!" and "the cinematography sucks"

So glad you stopped by, Morbs.

she also dug batman and superman II

just in case any fanboys are whimpering about the lack of drax in these posts, seeing guardians tomorrow afternoon, i promise to be talking about that and not kael by then

so did I! xp

She didn't like Ghostbusters and her complaints amounted to

...it wasn't very funny.

honestly i've been soft on the post-avengers sequels and i'm not really much for "the fuktarians are attacking the shlelbar planet" space-opera but i'm still hopeful this should be amusing and novel all the same

anybody know if drax is still a sax player in this? one of my favorite side-missions in lego marvel was helping him get a jazz-club for zoo animals started on top of a skyscraper and i want to brace myself if he'll never play us a tune

yall motherfuckers always talking about superman ii

sorry, nu-school comic-book action swill saaaayz nothing to me about my life, Superman II did

hang the cg
hang the cg
hang the cg

"weird" dr. morbius

She didn't like Ghostbusters and her complaints amounted to

...it wasn't very funny.

For some reason, that didn't bother her re: Ghostbusters 2.

also Chris Pratt is cute n' all but strikes me as kinda dumb and much less interesting w/ a buff body.

or as Casuistry usta say, muscles, YUCK!

http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/zod_medium.gif

pratt is much less central in the movie than in the trailers, gunn seemed p determined on equal screen time for the most part

rocket def the most popular in my theater

600 posts about a movie with a talking raccoon in it, huh?

zach gimme my sax spoiler please, does drax play the sax

i don't want to hope in vain

he does