-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Stan Lee awarded 10% of Marvel's Spider-Man movie profits
- Thread starter explodet
- Start date
- Status
Die Squirrel Die
Member
Go Stan. Stick it to the Man.
Ninja Scooter
Member
damn. Just off the 2 movies box office totals alone, isn't that like a $100 million payday?
Die Squirrel Die
Member
Ninja Scooter said:
Then think of the DVDs etc.
*Grabs sketch pad*
BigJonsson
Member
STAN THE MAN
mrklaw said:
From the case, first line:
:lol
EDIT: Just skimmed the opinion, and that's actually what the entire decision in favor of Lee seems to turn on, that Lee is entitled to share in the profits however Marvel and the movie companies characterized them in their relationship, and Marvel apparently went from "Hollywood accounting" where they shared very little (this happened w/ Blade) to gross/real profit participation.
Apharmd Battler
Member
Stan deserves the payday! I'm glad fr him. I for one am sick of suits making money off of creative people's hard work. I know it's te way of the world, but I don't have to like. Stan.....you the man!!
Property of Jumpship
Banned
Matlock said:
I'm rich, bitch!
Team Rancid
Member
Wow. What IS his net worth with Spidey, X-Men, Hulk, all the tv shows/cartoons he's had through the years.
Stan the Man!
Stan the Man!
Outcast2004
Banned
Flynn said:
I Agree full-heartedly with this post.
Stan may have wrote the stories, but he didn't create those characters all by himself. there are others in Marvel that deserve just as much as Stan.
While I may have never been a fan of Kirby's work, without him there would have been no Marvel. His estate is owed alot.
Ditko, despite being a recluse, created the look of the greatest costumed character created since Superman. Yet, he got nothing.
I can understand why though, they sign contracts that said that anything they created belonged to the company. Siegel and Shuster, and Bob Kane and Bill Finger (who STILL doesn't get recognized), all were shafted like this too.
I've turned down comic book deals from independant companies because of this. It's a shame too.... my stuff would have been published by now. I refuse to let anyone else have any stake in my creations. I learned from the legends what not to do.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Ditto on the comments re: Kirby and Ditko. They deserve some of the pie, too.
Ditko, especially, for Spider-Man. He had as much to do with the character as Stan, if not more. His whole moral-coded comics scream "With great power, comes great responsibility."
Ditko, especially, for Spider-Man. He had as much to do with the character as Stan, if not more. His whole moral-coded comics scream "With great power, comes great responsibility."
Well Lee had a contract with Marvel (that was re-worked after Marvel went into bankruptcy that allowed him to share in the profits:
I'm not sure what kind of agreements Ditko or Kirby had, but this wasn't a case of "Stan deserves it, it's messed up!," it was just pure contract construction, not really the court doing Lee any favors other than telling Marvel they couldn''t fuck with the accounting to rip Stan off while they made hundreds of millions.
That being said, it's still fucked up what Marvel has done to some of the people that helped make it what it is (well, better than what it is, but I digress...).
The Agreement said:
I'm not sure what kind of agreements Ditko or Kirby had, but this wasn't a case of "Stan deserves it, it's messed up!," it was just pure contract construction, not really the court doing Lee any favors other than telling Marvel they couldn''t fuck with the accounting to rip Stan off while they made hundreds of millions.
That being said, it's still fucked up what Marvel has done to some of the people that helped make it what it is (well, better than what it is, but I digress...).
For those unfamiliar with Stan controversy here's a good summary...
"Do you know an older hard-core comic book geek? If you do, here's how to send that person through the roof. Just say something like, "Isn't it great that Stan Lee is getting all this attention for his work?" Then stand back.
The truth is, many fans have a very difficult time with the subject of Stan Lee. Stan Lee helped almost single-handily bring about what is called the "Silver Age" of comic books. His impact cannot really be understated. The problem is (1) Stan Lee knows this; and (2) he has shamelessly plugged himself while minimizing the efforts of others. In the 70s, Marvel Comics first released several collections of the origins of super-heroes and villains like Bring on the Bad Guys and Son of Origins. Stan Lee did the introductions to each origin and took virtually all of the credit for creating them. He mentioned the artists almost as an afterthought, like they were there merely to give form to his vision. The best they seemed to do is suggest a certain color. This included artists like Jack Kirby (Fantastic Four, Thor, the Avengers, X-Men, Hulk, and more), Steve Ditko (Spider-Man) and others. This of course offended the artists, and they let fans know at comic conventions. Eventually, this created a backlash where Stan Lee was considered, a virtual enemy of "good comic" writers and artists.
The other problem, Lee is a "company man." He became an editor at Marvel, then Editor-in-Chief, and even Publisher. He became the public face for Marvel, in which he excelled. The comic fans and later comic creators/writers/artists revere the creative people and tolerate the business side of it. Much like in most of the entertainment world. This hurt Stan Lee with the "serious" (pretentious) comic crowd. Kirby especially was revered, and had a very nasty, protracted battle with Marvel when he left them.
Roy Thomas a long time comic book writer and artist has written extensively on comic book history of the 60s and 70s.
In recent years, Stan Lee has become respectable again. Part of it was the shakeout in the comics industry, and Marvel Comics' bankruptcy problems. The other factor has been Kevin Smith, the director of Clerks, Dogma, Chasing Amy, etc. Kevin Smith is a comic book geek (with his own store), and is a friend of Stan Lee, giving him a role in the otherwise lousy Mall Rats (and I like Kevin Smith movies, but it still sucked). His success and professed love of comics, has made him something of an idol to many comic geeks. His friendship with Stan Lee has allowed Lee to regain popularity with the hard-core fans."
Courtesy of
http://sardonicviews.blogspot.com/2002_04_28_sardonicviews_archive.html#85060047
"Do you know an older hard-core comic book geek? If you do, here's how to send that person through the roof. Just say something like, "Isn't it great that Stan Lee is getting all this attention for his work?" Then stand back.
The truth is, many fans have a very difficult time with the subject of Stan Lee. Stan Lee helped almost single-handily bring about what is called the "Silver Age" of comic books. His impact cannot really be understated. The problem is (1) Stan Lee knows this; and (2) he has shamelessly plugged himself while minimizing the efforts of others. In the 70s, Marvel Comics first released several collections of the origins of super-heroes and villains like Bring on the Bad Guys and Son of Origins. Stan Lee did the introductions to each origin and took virtually all of the credit for creating them. He mentioned the artists almost as an afterthought, like they were there merely to give form to his vision. The best they seemed to do is suggest a certain color. This included artists like Jack Kirby (Fantastic Four, Thor, the Avengers, X-Men, Hulk, and more), Steve Ditko (Spider-Man) and others. This of course offended the artists, and they let fans know at comic conventions. Eventually, this created a backlash where Stan Lee was considered, a virtual enemy of "good comic" writers and artists.
The other problem, Lee is a "company man." He became an editor at Marvel, then Editor-in-Chief, and even Publisher. He became the public face for Marvel, in which he excelled. The comic fans and later comic creators/writers/artists revere the creative people and tolerate the business side of it. Much like in most of the entertainment world. This hurt Stan Lee with the "serious" (pretentious) comic crowd. Kirby especially was revered, and had a very nasty, protracted battle with Marvel when he left them.
Roy Thomas a long time comic book writer and artist has written extensively on comic book history of the 60s and 70s.
In recent years, Stan Lee has become respectable again. Part of it was the shakeout in the comics industry, and Marvel Comics' bankruptcy problems. The other factor has been Kevin Smith, the director of Clerks, Dogma, Chasing Amy, etc. Kevin Smith is a comic book geek (with his own store), and is a friend of Stan Lee, giving him a role in the otherwise lousy Mall Rats (and I like Kevin Smith movies, but it still sucked). His success and professed love of comics, has made him something of an idol to many comic geeks. His friendship with Stan Lee has allowed Lee to regain popularity with the hard-core fans."
Courtesy of
http://sardonicviews.blogspot.com/2002_04_28_sardonicviews_archive.html#85060047
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Steve Ditko was the co-creator, not Kirby.
And that blurb, while deflating a little of the self-made Stan mythology, still overstes the facts. Stan ws nowhere near single-handedly defining the Silver Age-- he wasn't even on board at first. To say he did (even with Kirby and Ditko) is to dismiss Gardner Fox, John Broom and Julius Schwartz. Yeah, that was DC, but it did kick off the Silver Age.
And that blurb, while deflating a little of the self-made Stan mythology, still overstes the facts. Stan ws nowhere near single-handedly defining the Silver Age-- he wasn't even on board at first. To say he did (even with Kirby and Ditko) is to dismiss Gardner Fox, John Broom and Julius Schwartz. Yeah, that was DC, but it did kick off the Silver Age.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
stan lee sucks. he's a sell-out and a wanker too.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
What I meant was that while his vision and creatiosn were hugely important, the Silver Age was already well under way (for a few years) when FF #1 was published. To say he helped "bring it about" is just wrong. Defined a large part of it, yes.
I'm still in the camp that gets irked by Stan. I remember some bit of Marvel promotion that listed him as creator of Captain America. He wasn't even involved with Cap, and for all I know wasn't even in comics yet. That was Kirby and Simon.
I'm still in the camp that gets irked by Stan. I remember some bit of Marvel promotion that listed him as creator of Captain America. He wasn't even involved with Cap, and for all I know wasn't even in comics yet. That was Kirby and Simon.
norinrad21
Banned
I think Kirby came up with the creation of me [the silver surfer] but more often than not Stan Lee gets credited for the silver surfer's creation too.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
norinrad21 said:I think Kirby came up with the creation of me [the silver surfer] but more often than not Stan Lee gets credited for the silver surfer's creation too.
Yup. I believe the anecdote for that one also sheds light on the whole Marvel process back in those days.
The artist and write would have a meeting (I think the editor, too-- but most of the time that was Stan as editor and writer) and they'd plot a story out. The artist would draw it without dialogue, and then the writer would go back through and add all the dialgue and narration. The story with the Surfer was that he appeared inbetween the story meeting and the pencils-- Jack just added him in. That tells me that the plot was pretty loose before the artist went off to draw. It also explains a lot of the really funky dialogue in those comics.
Not to minimize Stan's involvement, I think the dialogue and associated pathos were a huge part of the appeal of the characters back then.
For those who remain interested, Tom Spurgeon of The Comics Reporter has written some good analysis of the decision.
He makes the distinction that this windfall comes not in the spirit of creator's rights but as a result of a contract dispute.
Story here.
He makes the distinction that this windfall comes not in the spirit of creator's rights but as a result of a contract dispute.
Story here.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yeah, but any excuse to rant on about maligned creators, y'know...
Future Trunks
lemme tell you something son, this guy is SO FARKING HUGE HE'LL FLEX AND DESTROY THE SUN no shit
Outcast2004 said:
Question: Then why did you even approach any companies? Independent or otherwise. (I know you didn't indicate that you actually went to any, but I'm under the assumption that you at least made an effort to get them to see your work and to entertain an offer of some sort)
EDIT: By the way, Outcast, I wasn't trying to single you out or anything like that, I was just curious as to what your desires/intentions were as a creator looking for a business venture with an independent company.
This does bring up an interesting problem. How do you compensate a creator for his/her ideas? I mean, you can't assign a dollar value to how many times a character appears in a book, how many times they saved the world (or destroyed it), whenever they kissed this person, how many times they got killed off and brought back, etc. It's improbable. Then, what about the company? The artist is using the company's name, resources, other characters and properties, and other talent as well under its label to promote their character/story/art. Letting the artist have ownership in such a way that the company doesn't get a sizeable (sizeable = nearly unfair for the creator) chunk of the royalties as well doesn't seem justified.
THEN, getting into technicalities, that character interacts with OTHER characters and locales, many of whom are most likely NOT the creator's. So, the artist gets royalties off of a character(s) whose identity(ies) is(are) being shaped by forces not under the ownership of the creator?
Also, concerning ownership, what if the character(s) are part of a bigger team or storyline? Then what? You give the creator money based off of the collective profits of said group? Wouldn't the creator then OWE the company, or other creators, money? Then, you may say: "Divide the royalties by the number of team members" but then, what if some character get more exposure than others? What if more people are added to the team over the years, then the character's value goes down. Like the Avengers/JLA, there aren't many active members in a given issue, but over the past 60 years a team-joined character would average out to be nearly worthless I would imagine.
I mean, after a while and with all of the technicalities, it becomes one big headache to think about. At any given moment, the ideas won't fully be your own, unless you can somehow pool every resource the ideas need to be realized and put them under your ownership.
I'm guessing a set royalty is the way to go with the creator having a prominent say in what happens to set characters and ideas. It robs the creator a bit money-wise, but geez, from a business/legal standpoint what else can you do, and be effective?
Any ideas? I'm not sure it's entirely possible, unless you're THAT rich to do it all yourself....
Sin City was published under a "creator owned" imprint at Dark Horse. The publisher sold comics, made some cash and Miller walked away with the rights to the characters he created.
The deal didn't put Dark Horse out of business.
I guess this model works better outside of the "universe" model that Marvel is stuck in.
The deal didn't put Dark Horse out of business.
I guess this model works better outside of the "universe" model that Marvel is stuck in.
Future Trunks
lemme tell you something son, this guy is SO FARKING HUGE HE'LL FLEX AND DESTROY THE SUN no shit
Wasn't Dark Horse founded by a couple of ex-comic shop retailers? I could see them agreeing with it easier than a Marvel financial guy. But you're right, being outside of the "universe" model is probably the best way to retain ownership of your ideas.
Non-integration seems to be the creator-friendly way of doing things.
Non-integration seems to be the creator-friendly way of doing things.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll