io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 10:19 PM
Mon Nov 30
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/04/09
11/20/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
If marvel wants to start making money introduce the writers you have exclusives with to the larger world. Three stories begging for any kind of live action are Criminal, Powers and the Hood (yes I know BKV isn't tired down by marvel.) They aren't tired IPs that everyone already knows. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
The movies are hit and miss. For every spiderman, there is spiderman 2 and 3. 3 being the one that might have killed the franchise. For every Ironman there is Punisher and Elektra.
If they can avoid cheap productions running roughshod over decent titles, they will be ok. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
11/03/09
And if memory serves correctly. Marvel borrowed money from itself to open their studios with 10-20 lesser titles as collateral. I still haven't figured out how they pulled that off.
I also believe some MVL shareholders petitioned to stop the buyout, but I don't know where that case is currently standing. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
Marvel's film branch is going to be a bigger cash cow and more popular than the original comics imprint.
Any year where they don't have any significant major film releases is naturally going to mean a lack of interest in their books and merchandising compared to a year that had 2 major movie releases.
We're still in the lull period before their ambitious cinematic gameplan starts to play out with Iron Man 2, then Thor, Captain America, Avengers, etc.
When that happens Marvel's worth could jump well past what they saw last year. Which is probably why investors wouldn't be too worried too as today the stock is still pretty much the same level as it was since the Disney buyout.
11/03/09
While they will try to continue and keep the comic book end profitable with the cross-overs and big events, I think Marvel's best bet money-wise is to use the comics as a platform to develop new IPs for movies and video games - i.e. Runaways.
(Where IS my Runaways movie, anyway?) #disneymarvel
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/04/09
11/03/09
Also, why is the Hulk the first of the Marvel film series' to embrace alternate comic titles for movie sequels?
I think the Amazing Spider-Man or The Uncanny X-Men or Invincible Iron Man would have been great titles for those series instead of the usual numeric markings.
Plus, how cool would it have been if the movie posters paid better homage to classic covers from their respective series? (Spider-Man especially!)
Missed opportunities across the board if you ask me. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
I think Batman Begins and Dark Knight sort of fit into that, although I was kinda disappointed that it wasn't "Batman: Begins" and "Batman: The Dark Knight", if only for cataloging purposes. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
Sigh. #disneymarvel
11/03/09
09/22/09
There is the world as it really is and the world as we might prefer it to be. You have to make a living in the world as it is.
I don't disagree with your point if your point is that copyright law has gotten completely out of hand. But given the laws of the moment, I think the Kirby estate would be foolish not to pursue this suit. The whole world has its hand out. If banksters living in the Hamptons can screw the pooch and still say "gimme" to the FDIC or Geithner, I think we can spare the Kirby estate its day in court.
Sheesh!
You don't think Jacob Kurtzberg cared about his family? It's the main reason he wasn't more of a troublemaker - he was trying to shelter, feed and clothe his family! He tried to avoid courtroom entanglements because he was always hoping to get more work or money by playing within the existing system as a gentleman. With hindsight we might call that a devastating miscalculation. Sadly, Kirby grew up in a time when people were taught to know their place - you stated your claim and then stopped pushing because some sense of common decency should kick in with your opponent and things would then work themselves out. Ultimately, that's what his story "Street Code" is all about. Kirby grew up in a time and place where even the petty crime bosses had a sense of common decency.
Kirby didn't know how to fight these greedy Marvel bastards in court. Jack didn't know how to deal with people without a sense of common decency. He didn't know that the bloodsuckers at Marvel could and would outlast him with their greed. The mistaken notion that Kirby sued Marvel a few decades back arises from the fact that Marvel lawyers were always trying to get him to sign papers in order that Jack might reclaim his original artwork. Most artists were made to sign a one page waiver of some kind, but Kirby's document was to be a several page, complicated affair. Of course, as most of the artwork had already been looted, the lawyers were actually trying to get him to sign away his authorial claims for almost nothing in return.
Dave Sim, another comics pro, would probably opine that Kirby had the classic problem of having made some kind of agreement - contractual or not - with an entity much larger than himself. The larger entity has the legal team, the time and the money to make one agree with whatever they want.
This is one small salvo to correct the savage injustice done to the artist we know as Jack Kirby. However you want to divvy up the percentage of authorship over various Marvel characters, Jacob Kurtzberg has the moral right to be identified with the work he created and his family now has the right to financially benefit from it.
09/21/09
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you are receiving a salary to create FOR a company, the work IS the property of the company, UNLESS an alternate agreement has been signed by both parties.
I'm not saying any of this is fair per se, it's just how the laws are set up. Artists that can start and manage their own companies do— think Todd McFarlane of McFarlane Toys or Herb Alpert, the 'A' in A&M records.
Kirby et al made the comic companies money (NOW, as it turns out, quite a bit of money), and by those same companies distributing his work, they (quite unintentionally) made him— a legend.
09/22/09
09/21/09
09/23/09
It's because people think (mistakenly, IMHO) that the Kirby family will "pull a Fox" and try to delay further Marvel projects, like Fox did with Watchmen. The situation is very, very different. The Kirby family would be much better served by a strong Marvel releasing new stuff with the characters.
Like I said, I don't care if it is "only his heirs," Marvel screwed him over, it's time they pay up.
09/21/09
09/21/09
Then how come Stan Lee was treated very differently?
At the very least, give them back *all* the original art.
09/21/09
Copyright law has changed over the years, and companies have done all kinds of things to try to retroactively secure copyrights. In the case of the Kirby estate, who knows what kind of contract--if any--Kirby signed before he created the Fantastic Four and the Hulk and the Avengers, etc?
09/21/09
While I didn't actually say that there is a contract involved, it's pedantic to point it out. It's inherent. The entire question revolves around the specifics in said contract. Wondering if there was one ever signed is strange to me. Maybe there wasn't a contract, but I highly doubt it.
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/21/09
It's exactly that kind of attitude that keeps me from talking to most of my family and out of the biz, but it serves as an example of what may be happening here.
Does Jack Kirby deserve more credit? Sure, though I think every single fanboy out there knows exactly who he is and what he did.
I've seen how families can get crazy about money, and even lie to themselves and say it's something they 'deserve.' This strikes me as that. Especially so close to the Disney deal.
Still, even if they win (very unlikely)? No Spider-Man. That's got to hurt.
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
He sure as hell tried when he was alive.
09/23/09
The reasons for that was that he was in poor health and didn't want to put his wife through the legal process. Still doesn't make what Marvel did right.
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
It's not just the one of the best animated films I've ever seen, it's one of the best films period.
09/21/09
09/21/09