COURT: LEE OWED MARVEL MOVIE MONEY

[MattBrady]

Following up on the lawsuit (http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=633) filed by Stan Lee in November of 2002, Marvel today announced that it had received a decision on the partial summary judgment motions made by Lee and Marvel in Lee’s litigation against Marvel. In his lawsuit, Lee claimed that Marvel owed him millions of dollars due to its “shameful scheme” in which Marvel reneged on its deal with Lee to pay him 10% of profits earned from Hollywood films based on Marvel characters.

The deal is written into Lee’s employment agreement with Marvel ($1 million a year), and reads:

“f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.”

According to Marvel’s statement, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has sided with Lee, and ruled that he is entitled to 10% of the profits Marvel has received since November 1998, “for the right to produce and distribute motion pictures and television productions based on Marvel's characters, and from movie-based toys manufactured and sold by Marvel itself.”

Marvel states that the court rejected Lee’s claim to monies received by Marvel from thirds party licensees of movie-based merchandise.

From Marvel: The court did not rule on Mr. Lee's claim that he is entitled to participate in profits from Marvel's joint venture with Sony relating to Spider-Man movie merchandise or profits from Marvel's international Hulk movie merchandise licensing program with Universal Studios. The court stated that these matters will have to be resolved by a jury.

John Turitzin, Marvel's General Counsel, said, "We intend to appeal those matters on which we did not prevail and to continue to contest vigorously the claims on which the court did not rule. We do not expect this decision to have an effect on our financial guidance for 2004, 2005 or our future prospects."

[LabRatMan]

Stan Lee deserves the money.
Especially with Marvel charging 3 bucks a comic now, they certainly have bled us enough to pay him.
Or they will use this as an excuse to raise the prices even higher.....either way, I'm just glad to see that they have to fork over some money for a change.

[Zeitgeist]

I love Stan, but he allready gets 1 million a year for just being alive, im not quite sure Marvel owes him anything

[solid-one-love]

Sadly, Lee will never see a cent.

While the movie profits are on the books up to the previous fiscal year, line profit is easy to hide (which is why smart folks try to get a cut of the gross). So there'll be no profit at all for Lee based on future projects, as Marvel will make it look as if all future projects are unprofitable.

And the moneys he would have received for previous years will be appealed until long after his death, after which his estate will likely agree to a settlement amounting to a tiny fraction of what Lee would have received.

[cncoyle]

If Stan were really classy, he'd distribute (or leave it in his will if it takes too long) half to a third of the profits he receives to the families of Kirby, Ditko and other co-creators of these characters.

[qtzar]

Stan Lee co created these characters.without him there would be no Marvel U like the one we enjoy right now.Im sick of the little guy always getting beat.put yourself in the same shoes if you created Spiderman/Superman, and you got beat like these guys usually do.you would be sick forever.In fact i think all the old contracts that were made where the creators got nothing while others got multi million empires should be looked at and let in for a piece of the pie.put yourself in their shoes

[Moonbeam]

Reading all these dollar signs, I just have to ask. Is the old guy available?

;)

[Noreikas]

Stan Lee co-created Spider-Man, who starred in two highly-successful movies. He co-created the X-Men team (and the characters of Prof. X, Cyclops, Iceman, Magneto, and Toad) which had two successfuol movies. He co-created Daredevil and the Fantastic Four (more movies).

He definitely deserve his share. The million dollar salary from Marvel is a separate issue.

Now - the question is, does Stan Lee have a legal leg to stand on. He co-created these characters in a work-for-hire situation, so legally he may not be able to collect the money.

But morally, he should get his share.

Too many of the comic book creators have been screwed over (Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Bill Finger, just to name a few). These people created characters we all enjoy, characters who have made millions for their respective companies. The creators deserve some as well.

[DarkJared]

Originally posted by cncoyle
If Stan were really classy, he'd distribute (or leave it in his will if it takes too long) half to a third of the profits he receives to the families of Kirby, Ditko and other co-creators of these characters.

Yeah but he's not so he won't.

Marvel doesnt owe him squat. Lee was paid a wage at the time of his original employment to create characters. He did and Marvel paid him what they agreed to then. Why does he need further compensation? That'd be like any other retired guy going back to all his previous employers over the last 60 years and saying they owed him wages compensated for today's minimum wage for work done then. It's ridiculous.

If your job is "to create new characters for Marvel Comics" then whatever you create is owned by Marvel Comics, not yourself as you were paid by them to do it. You didn't create them first and then sell them to Marvel. He did his job and should go away now.

In THIS case though Marvel does stupidly owe him money because they wrote it into his contract but as mentioned above it's easy to hide profits so he will likely not see as much as he's legally entitled according to the contract. Although while fighting post-bankruptcy, Marvel's own press releases hyped the high profitability of their movies and toys divisions for investors. It will be hard to hide anything in the past and will it be worth downplaying profits just so they don't have to pay his 10% at the risk of alienating investors and stock holders?

Marvel should stand on the strength of their characters and cut Lee loose. Drop the "Stan Lee Presents" from all their books and leave him out of any future movies.

[qtzar]

your funny Beamer....im a straight male and i was asking the same question:cool:

[vanderwolff]

Originally posted by cncoyle
If Stan were really classy, he'd distribute (or leave it in his will if it takes too long) half to a third of the profits he receives to the families of Kirby, Ditko and other co-creators of these characters.

Well put. As iconic a figure as Stan Lee may be, the true marrow (Kirby, Ditko, et al) of the modern Marvel mythology lie largely forgotten, in financial terms. It's hard to read stories like this without having to having to suppress a wave of revulsion.

[qtzar]

Originally posted by DarkJared
Yeah but he's not so he won't.

Marvel doesnt owe him squat. Lee was paid a wage at the time of his original employment to create characters. He did and Marvel paid him what they agreed to then. Why does he need further compensation? That'd be like any other retired guy going back to all his previous employers over the last 60 years and saying they owed him wages compensated for today's minimum wage for work done then. It's ridiculous.

If your job is "to create new characters for Marvel Comics" then whatever you create is owned by Marvel Comics, not yourself as you were paid by them to do it. You didn't create them first and then sell them to Marvel. He did his job and should go away now.

In THIS case though Marvel does stupidly owe him money because they wrote it into his contract but as mentioned above it's easy to hide profits so he will likely not see as much as he's legally entitled according to the contract. Although while fighting post-bankruptcy, Marvel's own press releases hyped the high profitability of their movies and toys divisions for investors. It will be hard to hide anything in the past and will it be worth downplaying profits just so they don't have to pay his 10% at the risk of alienating investors and stock holders?

Marvel should stand on the strength of their characters and cut Lee loose. Drop the "Stan Lee Presents" from all their books and leave him out of any future movies.

im sure your hypocrite.if you created something that had generated Billions while you made comparitively nothing, you would be at a lawyers office quicker than it would take you to look in a dictionary to see how to spell hypocrite

[Noreikas]

Stan Lee co-created Spider-Man, who starred in two highly-successful movies. He co-created the X-Men team (and the characters of Prof. X, Cyclops, Iceman, Magneto, and Toad) which had two successfuol movies. He co-created Daredevil and the Fantastic Four (more movies).

He definitely deserve his share. The million dollar salary from Marvel is a separate issue.

Now - the question is, does Stan Lee have a legal leg to stand on. He co-created these characters in a work-for-hire situation, so legally he may not be able to collect the money.

But morally, he should get his share.

Too many of the comic book creators have been screwed over (Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Bill Finger, just to name a few). These people created characters we all enjoy, characters who have made millions for their respective companies. The creators deserve some as well.

[divebomb]

Originally posted by DarkJared
Yeah but he's not so he won't.

Marvel doesnt owe him squat. Lee was paid a wage at the time of his original employment to create characters. He did and Marvel paid him what they agreed to then. Why does he need further compensation? That'd be like any other retired guy going back to all his previous employers over the last 60 years and saying they owed him wages compensated for today's minimum wage for work done then. It's ridiculous.

Normally I'd agree with you if he was claiming it after the fact but Marvel Wrote it into his contact. They offered he accepted. Now its time to pay!

[cactusmaac]

Originally posted by solid-one-love
Sadly, Lee will never see a cent.

While the movie profits are on the books up to the previous fiscal year, line profit is easy to hide (which is why smart folks try to get a cut of the gross). So there'll be no profit at all for Lee based on future projects, as Marvel will make it look as if all future projects are unprofitable.

And the moneys he would have received for previous years will be appealed until long after his death, after which his estate will likely agree to a settlement amounting to a tiny fraction of what Lee would have received.

Yeah.

What the heck was Stan doing hiring such incompetent advisers?

Profit's pretty much a fictional figure.

You ask for cuts of the gross.

[Erik K]

I love that "shameful scheme"! Stan will continue to alliterate to the grave. It sounds like something from the old Bullpen notes :)

[Paladin]

Now only if Marvel could repay all us poor idiotic schmucks who lost money when they went bankrupt.

:mad:

Stupid! Stupid!

[GCom]

If Stan Lee 'created' these iconic Marvel characters (and I'm not disputing that he did), why does he get a huge payday off every movie, and not his co-creators?

Does Steve Ditko get a big check for the Spider-Man movies?
Nope.

Does (if he were still alive) Jack Kirby get a wad of change for X-Men movies?
Nuh-uh.

Stan Lee wrote the contracts for Marvel back in the day, and he's known for having not treated his workmates too well when it came to such, while ensuring he got the lion's share.

I can't see Stan 'the man' Lee driving up to whever Steve Ditko currently lives, knocking on his door, and handing Steve a stack of green with a hearty "Steve, we did good. We made something that's given joy to millions of people...and we got paid doing it. Here's your share."

Anybody else remember when Marvel released Stan Lee from his million a year contract, which is why we suddenly were blessed with the 'Just Imagine Stan Lee Creating..." from DC? Ugh.



With Tolerance For The Truth...

GCom

[tricksterpup]

Did anyone really read the article?

“f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.”

Its a contract and Marvel has not coughed up their portion of the money. I do not blame Stan Lee for doing a contract like this. Hell, If I could get a Million a year for just being me, I would do it in a heart beat and so would every one here.
As for the Movies, heck, the X-men and Spider-man alone have made a boat load of money. I am not sure if Men in Black fall under this or not. I am not sure when the contract was written. But if the contract states that he should get 10% of the Profits, he should get it.

[Endocrine]

Wow DarkJarhead... you're sure in a pissy mood! Did you accidentally wipe your butt with sandpaper again?

What's with the big teardown with Stan Lee? I think you've pretty much forgotten that without Stan, Marvel would be a far distant memory. Stan built Marvel into a major powerhouse. Sure, Stan did this as a 'work for hire', and had no financial interest in the company (other than a salary). But you know what, while other publishers were going under by the bucketfulls during the 1950's, Stan stuck by Marvel. There would be no Spider-Man, no X-Men, no Hulk, no Daredevil, and no Fantastic Four without Stan.

But, so what?

As you say Jarhead, Marvel "stupidly" wrote a contract with Mr. Lee, giving him 10% of the movie and movie character profits, and now you think they don't owe him a cent?

You remind me of Stephen Hawking. Both of you think you're smart, but neither one of you make a hell of a lot of sense!

Stan Lee doesn't need Marvel, but Marvel needs Stan Lee! Don't you get it? That's why they wrote this idiotic contract that they're trying to get out of! They used Stan as a "crutch" during their bankruptcy, to generate movie deals and to promote the Marvel image. And now they have some money thanks mainly to Stan's producing efforts, instead of the gratitute they've written into a legally binding contract, you suggest that they turn him loose?

Yeah, Stan should get a hell of a lot more compensation that he's been given. And yes, he should split those profits with his co-creators. Steve Ditko, who Neal Adams has told me is a broken down old man confined to a wheelchair, should be compensated for his efforts at co-creating Spider-Man, regardless of the 'work for hire' basis! Jack Kirby, Marv Wolfman, John Romita, Chris Claremont, Len Wein... and many others, all should be compensated for the characters they've co-created for the "Marvel movies"!

And Jarhead, next time switch to Cottonelle. You'll feel a lot better!

[mavinga]

This is what happens when you try to milk someone's creations for decades.

Give Stan his dues, it's time for new characters and more genres.

[Michael P]

Originally posted by GCom
If Stan Lee 'created' these iconic Marvel characters (and I'm not disputing that he did), why does he get a huge payday off every movie, and not his co-creators?

Does Steve Ditko get a big check for the Spider-Man movies?
Nope.

Does (if he were still alive) Jack Kirby get a wad of change for X-Men movies?
Nuh-uh. Well, as you pointed out, Jack's dead. But even if he were alive, he wouldn't get the money unless he'd brokered the same kind of post-creation deal with Marvel Stan did.

Stan's not owed this money because of any of the work he did (or didn't do) in the 60's, at least not in the strictest sense. He's owed it because he was smart enough to broker this deal when Marvel made him Publisher Emeritus or whatever in the 80's or 90's (I can't remember which, but it was well after he'd stopped writing or editing for the company). And he got that opportunity becausehe stuck around and played the game while Kirby and Ditko went and did other stuff.

As for whether or not Kirby or Ditko could argue their way into some rights today, Marvel would probably settle with them if they raised a stink. Kirby most likely would be doing it, probably alongside his old partner Joe Simon. Ditko, I don't think he particularly wants it.

[MadBandit]

Originally posted by GCom
If Stan Lee 'created' these iconic Marvel characters (and I'm not disputing that he did), why does he get a huge payday off every movie, and not his co-creators?

Does Steve Ditko get a big check for the Spider-Man movies?
Nope.

Does (if he were still alive) Jack Kirby get a wad of change for X-Men movies?
Nuh-uh.

Stan Lee wrote the contracts for Marvel back in the day, and he's known for having not treated his workmates too well when it came to such, while ensuring he got the lion's share.

I can't see Stan 'the man' Lee driving up to whever Steve Ditko currently lives, knocking on his door, and handing Steve a stack of green with a hearty "Steve, we did good. We made something that's given joy to millions of people...and we got paid doing it. Here's your share."

Anybody else remember when Marvel released Stan Lee from his million a year contract, which is why we suddenly were blessed with the 'Just Imagine Stan Lee Creating..." from DC? Ugh.



With Tolerance For The Truth...

GCom

Are you clueless or what? First of all, Ditko hasn't bitched about wanting money. He's obviously happy he gets credit for co-creating Spiderman on the first film. As for Kirby, maybe he wasn't the "showman" Stan is. For both, it was a work-for-hire situation. That means if you work for a company and you created a product/character under their supervision, they own the creation.

Sure, some people are pissed about Frank Miller not getting initial credit on "Elektra" (he and Marvel differ over the character's direction), but after the movie's poor reception at the box office, I wouldn't give two shits and a piss about the film if I were Miller (Working on Sin City: The Motion Picture seems to satisfy him).

Stan deserves the money. And at least he fought for it.:D

[GCom]

Can anyone name any Marvel character that Stan Lee created SOLO (as in all by himself) that is still around today, and generates money for Marvel?

If anyone can, let's compare that to how many co-created characters/teams Stan Lee had a hand in, that are still bringing in capital.

Stan built Marvel into a major powerhouse. Sure, Stan did this as a 'work for hire', and had no financial interest in the company (other than a salary). But you know what, while other publishers were going under by the bucketfulls during the 1950's, Stan stuck by Marvel.

That's true. Stan saw the writing on the wall about a coming crackdown on crime and horror comics, and made some prudent decisions. Check out the history of the Comcis Code Authority and see what hand Stan had in that (somewhat behind the scenes).

I give credit to Stan for being able to write himself some great contracts, and get himself huge paychecks for the rest of his life. I'd go for that myself. I just find it hard to stand behind this man, especially since most artists at the time knew nothing about contracts, and Stan took advantage of that. Many comic artists/writers are terrible businessmen.

Anyone know if Stan donates or supports ACTOR?



With Tolerance For Legalese...

GCom

[pah25]

But are Marvel still waiting for money from those c*** su***** called sony?

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by GCom
Anyone know if Stan donates or supports ACTOR? Stan has been involved in a number of ACTOR fundraisers, such as this one (http://www.actorcomicfund.org/Pages/PR/3_9_04.html). He has also been involved in similar non-ACTOR efforts (http://www.aardwolfpublishing.com/Comics-and-books/cockrum-tribute.htm).

[FIG]

Originally posted by cncoyle
If Stan were really classy, he'd distribute (or leave it in his will if it takes too long) half to a third of the profits he receives to the families of Kirby, Ditko and other co-creators of these characters.

Well said, hes not the only creator involved in the characters creation.

[OM]

Originally posted by qtzar
Stan Lee co created these characters.without him there would be no Marvel U like the one we enjoy right now.Im sick of the little guy always getting beat.put yourself in the same shoes if you created Spiderman/Superman, and you got beat like these guys usually do.you would be sick forever.In fact i think all the old contracts that were made where the creators got nothing while others got multi million empires should be looked at and let in for a piece of the pie.put yourself in their shoes ...Someone give this kid a lesson on punctuation and proper paragraph format, please?

[Shakes head in utter dismay]

[GCom]

Nat Gertler, thank you.
Stan has been involved in a number of ACTOR fundraisers, such as this one. He has also been involved in similar non-ACTOR efforts.

I wasn't aware of the "Win-A-Lunch" thing, and that seems kinda cool. The Dave Cockrum aid thing seems a good step. Stan Lee wins some points in my eyes for that, and thanks for pointing those out.

Maybe I'm being reactionary, I dunno. I just hate the thought of Steve Ditko confined to a wheelchair, arthritic, and needing financial help, when Stan Lee is getting richer over works Steve and Stan did together...and Steve sees no money for it because Stan wrote the contract. To me, that's lame and a half.



With Tolerance For The State Of The Condition...

GCom

[BurgundyTears]

Originally posted by cncoyle
If Stan were really classy, he'd distribute (or leave it in his will if it takes too long) half to a third of the profits he receives to the families of Kirby, Ditko and other co-creators of these characters.
Agreed. Stan was the only one of them who got an extremely good deal (literally 1 million a year for being alive, as someone else mentioned), while, as I've understood it, Kirby and his widow had extremely severe money problems and had Frank Miller trying to negotiate on their behalf some time before the grandmaster's death. If Stan intends to actually share the profit with all the people Marvel screwed over during the years I'm 100% with him. Othervise it just seems like further greed, while already profiting from an extremely lazy pension (which I personally think he deserved) for the last 25 years or so and some of his companions were left to starve. :(

[boypop]

I don't care if he created the Marvel Universe under work for hire or not, if Kirby got money or not, or Ditko or otherwise. It may not have been fair what happened to Kirby or Ditko but they should have had their contracts written the same way as Lee's and if they did, they'd be entitled to it too.

It doesn't matter if Lee already gets a bazillion dollars already from Marvel. They wrote the contract that way and it explicitly says he gets 10% then they have to give it to him.

Marvel knows this too. Why are they appealing? The longer they hold off on paying him, the longer they get to hold on to the money and the more money it makes in the bank earning interest.

Truth be known, I think Marvel is appealing in the hope that while the appeal is holding and Marvel doesn't have to pay him, they are kind of hoping he dies then they don't have to pay a cent because the contract reads 'during his lifetime'.

Marvel is cheap, they're liars and they produce $#!* comics. I don't even buy Marvel comics anymore they're so bad and they change numbering so often, you need a scorecard to keep track.
Marvel is just so out there today, it's sad.

[Hannibal King]

I think Stan should get his share. Without him we would not have had the Marvel we had today, nor would DC be in the position that itself is now in. He's called the "Man" for a reason.

Give'em his money and start putting your books out on time Marvel!

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Hannibal King
... He's called the "Man" for a reason.


Absolutely, that reason being that he's the grand-master of self-promotion, and always has been.

[divebomb]

Originally posted by boypop
Truth be known, I think Marvel is appealing in the hope that while the appeal is holding and Marvel doesn't have to pay him, they are kind of hoping he dies then they don't have to pay a cent because the contract reads 'during his lifetime'.

Not likely. I may bot understand US Law but I am sure even if Stan Dies his estate or Heirs can sue for money he was owed plus interest while he was alive

[bubba]

Hell yeah marvel should be paying him more money without lee there would be no marvel universe

[hiphophead]

I guess Stan will end up on the cutting floor in all future Marvel related movies :rolleyes:

[mendrakis]

Originally posted by OM
...Someone give this kid a lesson on punctuation and proper paragraph format, please?

[Shakes head in utter dismay]

But does it invalidate what he's saying?

[bubba]

Someone give this kid a lesson on punctuation and proper paragraph format, please?

OM these are just post no one has to super correct

[Bakema NL]

Legally he may not be entitled to the money. But he very much deserves it anyway................and yes, Kirby and Ditko too for example. Marvel and all people should be thankful for a guy like Lee, he created their jobs in a way. And Marvel stil relies on most of the stuff this man has created all these years ago, the anchors of the Marvel universe.

Ok, now I'm off to reading the book Excelsior again...........right in the middle of it. :)

[Willie Garvin]

And if you think he doesn't do anything to deserve it, try to recall all the media interviews and DVD supplements you've seen him in recently. Maybe you or I'd do that for free, but I bet Stan has things he'd rather do than than recite the same old stories time and again for condescending and oblivious interviewers. Or maybe not.

As for the 10% of movie profits deal, well, that's another bad business decision Marvel can blame on the Ron Perelman regime. Y'see in 1998, after Marvel's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Marvel realized that the original contracts they had with Stan regarding ownership of characters he (co) created were null and void. That would mean that, if he chose to, Stan could then challenge Marvel in court for the rights to Spider-Man, The Hulk, et al.

Now, Joe Simon they can handle, thinks Marvel, but Stan Lee has been the public face and voice of Marvel since it's creation, so at best, the whole thing would be a public relations nightmare. It would be a case of, to quote the title of a great work of literature, " Even If I Win, I Lose!".
And if they actually lose the case, (which would not have been inconceivable) Marvel would for all intents and purposes be out of business.

Marvel is not exactly in the strongest bargaining position in 1998, so basically they give Stan whatever he wants, which is roughly $1 million a year for life, and upon his death, $500,000 a year for his wife Joan for the rest of her life. Also, and this is the kicker, Stan is to get an Executive Producer credit on all Marvel film and television productions, and 10% of all profits derived from those projects.

Obviously, Marvel would never agree to a contract like that today, but when Perelman was running the company, he thought Marvels future was in licensing characters to appear on cards and stickers. That's why Marvel over-paid for companies like Fleer and Skybox in the 90's----they wanted to be in the collectibles business. Perelman had no interest in movies (outside of marrying Ellen Barkin, who I thought had better taste), so what would be the harm in signing away %10 of something that was never going to happen?

Fast forward a few years after Perelman's departure , and Marvel movies have raked in billions of dollars, and the company now finds itself in the postion of having to pay up on it's obligation to Stan.

Ironically, they resort to the so-called "Hollywood accounting" method, whereby, through creative math, no profits can actually be proven, and thus, no money has to be paid out to the net participants. I say ironically, because "Holllywood acoounting was one of the main reasons for Perelman's disdain for the movie business---he thought Marvel would never see any of the money from it.

To anyone interested in reading more about the long complicated relationship between Stan Lee and Marvel, I recommend Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon's book, Stan Lee And The Rise And Fall Of The American Comic Book, where everything I just said is covered more eloquently and in much greater depth.

[Hanky Panky]

Thanks for refreshing my memory regarding "Stan Lee And The Rise And Fall Of The American Comic Book". I highly recommend this to anyone curious in the background and innerworkings of Stan with the publishing biz. Perhaps it can absolve any misconceptions by the casual fan and reader.

I'm not too concerned about Stan's financial situation...those Mallrat royalty checks probably bought him a sweet ride!

[Kolimar]

I'm not sure who to root for. I'm pissed at everybody right now. :mad:

:p

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by GCom
I just hate the thought of Steve Ditko confined to a wheelchair, arthritic, and needing financial help, when Stan Lee is getting richer over works Steve and Stan did together...and Steve sees no money for it because Stan wrote the contract. To me, that's lame and a half. My understanding is that Ditko, who holds strongly to certain principles has been resistant to things that would have given him some financial reward for the success of Spider-Man.

[TRaik]

Originally posted by Moonbeam
Reading all these dollar signs, I just have to ask. Is the old guy available? ;)

Nah, Stan's married...but (as someone mentioned elsewhere in this discussion) Stan's Marvel contract apparently includes a provision for a half-million-dollar-per-year pension to his widow after he dies. So, yep, he did negotiate this contract with his family in mind.


Originally posted by boypop
Truth be known, I think Marvel is appealing in the hope that while the appeal is holding and Marvel doesn't have to pay him, they are kind of hoping he dies then they don't have to pay a cent because the contract reads 'during his lifetime'.

Well, that's not too cynical is it? :rolleyes:

Not only could Lee's heirs always take up any lawsuit, but since Lee's contract apparently includes provisions for payments to his widow after his death, it's hardly as if Marvel is going to be entirely off the hook on his demise. Marvel's appealing the decision because that's what litigants do and because that's what the law allows; there doesn't seem to be any immediate need to ascribe more sinister motivations to Mavel, like their actively hoping for Lee's demise...

[Jab]

Originally posted by Moonbeam
Reading all these dollar signs, I just have to ask. Is the old guy available?

;) I disturbingly find myself agreeing with Moonbeam.

How dare they rip Stan The Man off? No Stan.. than comics are completely different. Likely not better. It galls me to think how all these Fathers of the Four Colour Faction... continuely get screwed by massive companies looking to make a profit. Although it does make it marginally more palatable when my monster company employer screws me on my annual bonus.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by bubba
Hell yeah marvel should be paying him more money without lee there would be no marvel universe

For the life of me, I can't figure out which of these two parties I feel less sorry for, Stan Lee or Marvel Comics. That's a real tough one, for sure. Looks to me like two winners in this whole deal fighting over a pile of money.

(I expect Jack's spinning in his grave right about now. :( )

If there's one person in the industry who you don't need to spend a lot of time feeling sorry for, it's Stan Lee.

[Len Cage]

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
I love Stan, but he allready gets 1 million a year for just being alive, im not quite sure Marvel owes him anything

So you'd rather a faceless corporation keep the profits instead of the creator? What, you think the money's going to charity or something?

[Len Cage]

This blog, this website, this industry, wouldn't be here if it weren't for Stan. PERIOD

[mavinga]

Originally posted by Len Cage
This blog, this website, this industry, wouldn't be here if it weren't for Stan. PERIOD

Sorry, I have to disagree. Stan created some lasting characters, but he did not invent it the medium. It would all exist in a different form. France has a wonderful comics industry and Stan is nowhere near its forefront.

Think about that.

[Captain Jim]

I really can't believe how much negativity I'm seeing here. Without Stan Lee, there would probably be no Marvel Comics today. Period. Marvel has had dismal success creating any new characters since the 1960's that have stood the test of time (with a few notable exceptions: Wolverine, etc.)

And as much as I loved Jack Kirby (who at one time probably drew almost everything at Marvel) and Steve Ditko (who only really has a significant history on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, and not all that long of a one there), Stan is the one who created the characters and wrote the stories. I don't care what Jack Kirby said; as one who was reading the books back then, I'm telling you his claims just don't hold up to the facts.

But then, the issue isn't really if Stan needs more money, or if somebody else should have gotten some too, the issue is, should Marvel be required to uphold their end of a deal they agreed to? I really can't believe we're debating this.

[gwangung]

Originally posted by Captain Jim
I really can't believe how much negativity I'm seeing here. Without Stan Lee, there would probably be no Marvel Comics today. Period. Marvel has had dismal success creating any new characters since the 1960's that have stood the test of time (with a few notable exceptions: Wolverine, etc.)

And as much as I loved Jack Kirby (who at one time probably drew almost everything at Marvel) and Steve Ditko (who only really has a significant history on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, and not all that long of a one there), Stan is the one who created the characters and wrote the stories. I don't care what Jack Kirby said; as one who was reading the books back then, I'm telling you his claims just don't hold up to the facts.

But then, the issue isn't really if Stan needs more money, or if somebody else should have gotten some too, the issue is, should Marvel be required to uphold their end of a deal they agreed to? I really can't believe we're debating this.

Oh, I can. In society these days, it's OK to be jealous and even hate those who are better off, richer and more talented than you.

Just rank envy allowed expression (what? where did you think those lines in THE INCREDIBLES come from?).

[DrTzinTzin]

Originally posted by Len Cage
This blog, this website, this industry, wouldn't be here if it weren't for Stan. PERIOD

Len...do the names Julius Schwartz, Will Eisner and Mort Weisinger mean anything to you?

What about Jerry Siegel, Joe Schuster and Bill Finger?

Here's some more...William Marston, Gil Kane and Jerry Robinson.

Anyone who says that Stan Lee invented the comics medium is misinformed at best and criminally insane at worst.

Stan Lee was hit in the arse with a rainbow when he met Jack Kirby.

I was going write something utterly offensive in response to this which would have probably got me banned. But instead, I'll say "Anyone who lets himself be interviewed by Kevin Smith deserves everything that he's got coming to him...all of it bad"

[manosx]

Everyone whose worried that Stan is ion the same boat as Bill Finger was is sadly mistaken. This is a man who lived next to Madonna for many years. Literally right next door. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his 10%, I'm just saying don't lump him in with "Comic Creators Who Never Got Their Due". Stan got his due and many others as well.

[reddragon1978]

Stan Lee days are over. Go ahead and give the guy the money...but stay the hell out the the comics. They should just get rid of Stan Lee presents in all the Marvel titles.

Stan Lee did give marvel the characters....but he will never be Brian Bendis or Warren Ellis!

Yes...he did participate in historical events...but as history so should be Stan Lee....his days are numbered.

I give the guy until he's 110years old and no more...marvel stocks will soar with the extra 1million dollars they waste on the likes of Stan Lee!!!

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by manosx
Everyone whose worried that Stan is ion the same boat as Bill Finger was is sadly mistaken. This is a man who lived next to Madonna for many years. Literally right next door. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his 10%, I'm just saying don't lump him in with "Comic Creators Who Never Got Their Due". Stan got his due and many others as well.

Right on. Exactly. Like I posted earlier, this is a case of the two winners fighting over a big pile of money. It's not like Stan's been living in a two-bedroom apartment out in Newark or somewhere. He's been living well for the last thirty years, deservedly or otherwise. How much money do you reckon he needs?

[LikeaPhoenix]

At first glance, this article's title gave me the impression that Stan Lee has to pay Marvel.

Marvel, pay Stan already! 'Nuf said!

[Bakema NL]

Originally posted by DrTzinTzin
Anyone who says that Stan Lee invented the comics medium is misinformed at best and criminally insane at worst.

No, he didn't invent the medium, but he gave it a much needed injection nobody has ever repeated since really. If only there would be a Stan Lee now, in modern form, comics wouldn't be in the trouble they are in right now.
Sure, the man has had his day, but his significance can not be overseen or disrespected. Remarks like "he's no Bendis" are ridiculous.........Bendis is no Shakespeare...so what? Another guy, another era.
And it's not about Stan finally getting the profits he deserves because of not getting his due as a comics creator. It's just about money being promised, as an arrangement..........be honest, you would go after it too. And yes, he seems to have lived a good life thanks to his comics work and others haven't..........the way of life really. Stan was lucky.....or smarter.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Bakema NL
...If only there would be a Stan Lee now, in modern form, comics wouldn't be in the trouble they are in right now.



I don't know what the "trouble" is that you refer to...

The way I see it, comics are pretty much in the same boat that they've been in for the last several decades, in that it's still a fringe media whose main consumers are pre-adolescent-to-young males, the content of which is still dominated by spandex-clad superheroes beating the stuffing out of one another.

Before you hit me with Moore, Gaiman, Ellis, etc., I know I'm over-simplifying a bit, but there it is. Comics have become more sophisticated, but to get right down to it, they're only keeping pace with the rest of the American media which has also become much more sophisticated in the last thirty years.

The fact is that most articles about comics that appear in the mainstream media still begin with the words "Bam!Zap!Pow!", and most likely always will. Why? Because the Powers-That-Be in American comics (read: the Big 2) like it that way, and the portion of the fan-base that doesn't moves on to something else (read: girls, college, career, whatever).

As one of said Powers-That-Be, Stan deserves as much credit (or blame) for what's right (or wrong) about the medium as anyone. I think the comics medium has under-performed, myself. I think a comics medium that can't find a viable market for books like Nexus, but can find an audience for a dozen X-books and a half-dozen Spiderman and a half-dozen Batman books in a given month has something wrong with it. But, that's just me.

The only truly significant thing to change the landscape comics is that Hollywood's special-effects abilities have improved to the point where superheroes can be portrayed credibly and affordably on film, thus opening up a revenue stream that dwarfs whatever can be made from comic books themselves. And unless Stan is a special-effects wizard and no one told me, he gets no credit for that.

[Bakema NL]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
I don't know what the "trouble" is that you refer to...

You paid attention to the sales figures recently? And the lack of interest from kids who have to grow into the pre-adolescent-to-young males audience comics need? The competition from other media?
There certainly is a problem I think, it has been discussed several times here.

[bubba]

How many us take time to read french comics

[bubba]

OH MY GOD! Most of you guys are crying like bitches. So what if Lee doesn't need the money! HIS CONTRACT states that he is owed the money. If you guys are so mad that other creators didn't get there cut well then start a petition or something to help them and stop bagging on Lee. Alot of the guys mentioned are great in there own right but, how many of them (besides kirby) helped create a universe or was the public face of their companies. I don't remeber seeing Bob Kane show up before every Batman cartoon but, I do remember seeing Lee right before the FF cartoon and the SS cartoon all the time.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Bakema NL
You paid attention to the sales figures recently? And the lack of interest from kids who have to grow into the pre-adolescent-to-young males audience comics need? The competition from other media?
There certainly is a problem I think, it has been discussed several times here.


Yes, and after reading my previous post, I regretted that I didn't mention the advent of the home-gaming system, MTV, etc.

So what are you saying, that there's no latter-day Stan Lee to shepherd the industry through this?

As I see it, the problem is that the Stan Lee in question, along with the other Powers-That-Be in the industry, chose to put all of their eggs in one basket by fixating the entire industry on the Superhero phenomenon, targeting the aforementioned pre-adolescent-to-young male demographic.

There are some pretty obvious problems with this demographic:

1. An overwhelming majority will eventually outgrow your product,
2. they don't have a great deal of disposable income, and
3. there are a whole bunch of other industries out there fighting for what little disposable income they do have.

I disagree with you that the problem is lack of interest in kids. That's just a symptom of a greater disease. The real pervasive problem is lack of interest from adults. They're the ones with disposable income. They're the ones I want as my target demographic if I'm going to create an entertainment franchise.

That's the genius behind the successful entertainment industries: appealing to a wide demograhic.

What does all this have to do with Stan Lee? Well, by all accounts he's the George Washington of Superheroes. He was one of those Powers-That-Be that wanted to stake the future of the industry on a narrow, fickle demographic. If he's goiing to take all the accolades (and he will, believe me), then he needs to shoulder his share of the blame as well.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by bubba
How many us take time to read french comics

Um, I think that's your loss, not ours.

[Len Cage]

Originally posted by DrTzinTzin
Len...do the names Julius Schwartz, Will Eisner and Mort Weisinger mean anything to you?

What about Jerry Siegel, Joe Schuster and Bill Finger?

Here's some more...William Marston, Gil Kane and Jerry Robinson.

Anyone who says that Stan Lee invented the comics medium is misinformed at best and criminally insane at worst.

Stan Lee was hit in the arse with a rainbow when he met Jack Kirby.

I was going write something utterly offensive in response to this which would have probably got me banned. But instead, I'll say "Anyone who lets himself be interviewed by Kevin Smith deserves everything that he's got coming to him...all of it bad"

I was not saying that Stan Lee invented comics. What I was saying is that he is the MOST important person in comics history. So many of the characters today that sell or have films are either Stan Lee creations or spin-offs of his creations. Yes, others created some classics but it was Lee who had a hand in the creations of so many that we see today all over the place. He elevated interest in comics for every generation since. Even DC has benefited from the increased interest in comics brought by Lee's creations. I cannot believe this is even a point of argument, tell me where comics would be today without Stan Lee? It safe to say they wouldn't.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
What does all this have to do with Stan Lee? Well, by all accounts he's the George Washington of Superheroes. He was one of those Powers-That-Be that wanted to stake the future of the industry on a narrow, fickle demographic. He was?

I'm not sure which Stan Lee you're speaking of. This would not seem to be the famed Stan Lee, who wrote plenty of non-superhero material, who tried bringing plenty of non-superhero material out during his reins as editor-in-chief and then publisher of Marvel, who was at the helm when they moved into the magazine market to target the older readers.

The Marvel of today may be just about exclusively superheroes, but it's been decades since Stan was anything but a figurehead at Marvel's publishing operations.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Len Cage
I was not saying that Stan Lee invented comics. What I was saying is that he is the MOST important person in comics history. So many of the characters today that sell or have films are either Stan Lee creations or spin-offs of his creations. Yes, others created some classics but it was Lee who had a hand in the creations of so many that we see today all over the place. He elevated interest in comics for every generation since. Even DC has benefited from the increased interest in comics brought by Lee's creations. I cannot believe this is even a point of argument, tell me where comics would be today without Stan Lee? It safe to say they wouldn't.

I don't think that's "safe to say" at all.

For example, what if John Wayne had gained control over most of the film industry and had decided to just fixate on, say, Westerns, which he was really good at and were really popular at the time, at the expense of everything else, would that industry have become more successful? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say probably not.

I know that example sounds pretty inane, but that's essentially what the comics industry did, under the leadership of Stan Lee and others like him.

There's frankly no telling what would have happened if the industry hadn't become dominated by Spiderman and Batman. But we certainly know what did happen. It has remained a fringe industry that continues to hang-on by it's fingernails because it's main target demographic are pre-adolescent-to-young males.

If you look at how widely the medium is accepted by a broader audience in other parts of the world compared to here in the U.S.A., you can at least make the argument that it's a failure.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
He was?

I'm not sure which Stan Lee you're speaking of. This would not seem to be the famed Stan Lee, who wrote plenty of non-superhero material, who tried bringing plenty of non-superhero material out during his reins as editor-in-chief and then publisher of Marvel, who was at the helm when they moved into the magazine market to target the older readers.

The Marvel of today may be just about exclusively superheroes, but it's been decades since Stan was anything but a figurehead at Marvel's publishing operations.

The comics industry's emphasis on superheroes is not some new phenomenon that Stan Lee was not a part of. It's been there since I was a kid and I'm nearly forty now.

Sure Marvel, (and D.C., and whomever) have dabbled in comics geared towards older readers. They still do, with marginal success. But they've never been the true target demographic. Marvel puts out as many Spiderman titles per month as they do comics geared towards adults.

It depends on how you look at it. I think it's geat, really great, that comics such as Planetary and Ex Machina get published. What's a failure is that their readership, compared to that of even mediocre superheroes, is pretty small.

It's a token adult audience, not a real adult audience. That's why they're struggling.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
The industries emphasis on superheroes is not some new phenomenon that Stan Lee was not a part of.That the industry does not ignore superheroes is because they sold, and continue to sell, even at times when other things generally don't fare nearly as well.
It's been there since I was a kid and I'm nearly forty now.I'm nearly forty now myself, and when I was a kid there were lines of comics with different targets. Archie, Harvey, and Warren all targeted different folks than the mainstream Marvel superhero books.
Sure Marvel, (and D.C., and whomever) have dabbled in comics geared towards older readers. They still do, with marginal success. But they've never been the true target demographic.Actually, what evidence I've seen suggests that the folks buying the Marvel and DC books are largely adults these days.

Did Marvel and DC ever abandon the superhero reader to chase after some market? No. It would seem silly for them to stop making the books that sell while they experiment with books that they try to sell.

But if you want to point to some policy or decision by Stan besides that he continued publishing more of what the customers continued buying, I'd be interested in hearing your point.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
That the industry does not ignore superheroes is because they sold, and continue to sell, even at times when other things generally don't fare nearly as well.
I'm nearly forty now myself, and when I was a kid there were lines of comics with different targets. Archie, Harvey, and Warren all targeted different folks than the mainstream Marvel superhero books.
Actually, what evidence I've seen suggests that the folks buying the Marvel and DC books are largely adults these days.

Did Marvel and DC ever abandon the superhero reader to chase after some market? No. It would seem silly for them to stop making the books that sell while they experiment with books that they try to sell.

But if you want to point to some policy or decision by Stan besides that he continued publishing more of what the customers continued buying, I'd be interested in hearing your point.

Come on! What is the overriding image of comics in the mainstream? You know it as well as I do: that it's a media aimed at kids populated by spandex-clad superheroes, not one that provides sophisticated adult entertainment. Why do you think that every article about the comics industry begins with some cliche like "Bam! Zap! Pow! They're not just for kids anymore!" It's an industry that because of it's own marketing image is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as providing purile entertainment to young adolescents.

This is a point of view that's not necessarily true about the industry elsewhere in the world, but that's certainly true here.

The overall problem is that comics are not perceived as an adult medium by the mainstream in this country. The fact that bad superhero comics outsell good adult comics is because adults simply aren't looking for their entertainment in this industry. That's the bottom line.

That's why the periodic half-hearted efforts to put out adult-friendly comics tend to fail. That's why the companies like Warren that you mentioned are toast. It's an industry-wide failure in Marketing that can be traced back to the dominance of the Big Two. They envisioned an industry dominated by superheroes because that's the model that favored them at the time, and by God, they got it.

I certainly can't prove that the industry would have been more successful otherwise. But basic understanding of demographics combined with mainstream popularity of comics elsewhere in the world tends to imply that you can at least make the argument.

You seem to want to give Stan some kind of alibi. I'm not buying it. By all accounts he's an industry giant. Some people are saying he's the most important figure in comics. Well, you can't be the most important figure in comics and yet not share responsibility for the state of the industry at the same time. He's the first one to stand up and take the credit for the successes, let him take the blame for the failures.

And not being perceived by the mainstream as an adult-friendly entertainment industry is a failure in my book.

[GossAmerica]

Originally posted by LikeaPhoenix
At first glance, this article's title gave me the impression that Stan Lee has to pay Marvel.

Yes, poorly written title. Is it:
A) Lee owed movie money TO Marvel
or
B) Lee owed movie money BY Marvel?

Yes, I know it's B, but still. The headline writer needs a little help. I think he was trying too hard to use Lee-esque alliteration (massive 'mounts of magnificent Marvel movie money, Mac!) :D

[Jeremy Williams]

Originally posted by boypop
Marvel is cheap, they're liars and they produce $#!* comics. I don't even buy Marvel comics anymore they're so bad and they change numbering so often, you need a scorecard to keep track.
Marvel is just so out there today, it's sad.

Calm down Mr. Levitz, we don`t you continue pubilshing your boring comics while the competition takes the World on fire every months? :D

Seriously Stan should let go. If he continues his little suing games Marvel will shut the door definitly on him, that means no more "created by Stan Lee" or cameos. `smonth Stan likes the attention, seeing his ugly mug in Marvel movies gives him such a rush.

[Bakema NL]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
Yes, and after reading my previous post, I regretted that I didn't mention the advent of the home-gaming system, MTV, etc.

So what are you saying, that there's no latter-day Stan Lee to shepherd the industry through this?

There is no-one with some kind of new idea to give the industry a much needed kick in the butt. Stan came up with some new stuff, or new approach.

As I see it, the problem is that the Stan Lee in question, along with the other Powers-That-Be in the industry, chose to put all of their eggs in one basket by fixating the entire industry on the Superhero phenomenon, targeting the aforementioned pre-adolescent-to-young male demographic.

Maybe. And before that it was horror, or science fiction, humor.........there's always something the most popular. No reason for somebody else to not step up and (try to) change this. But somehow the efforts, they are there, fail, or are mildly succesful.

There are some pretty obvious problems with this demographic:

1. An overwhelming majority will eventually outgrow your product,
2. they don't have a great deal of disposable income, and
3. there are a whole bunch of other industries out there fighting for what little disposable income they do have.

People outgrowing the product happens, with a lot of things. But it doesn't happen with movies much, most are moving comics anyway and the crowds keep on coming. Outgrowing the product, in the case of comics, is mostly between the ears, or other people talking you into it.....out of it really...you must know them.
And nowadays there are a lot of other industries, back in the day some weren't there.
A much heard complaint is there is no next wave coming into comics shops, so the pre-adolescent-to-young male demographic are growing older and there are not that many new ones coming in. So Stan reached that audience back then, now the companies fail to a certain degree.

I disagree with you that the problem is lack of interest in kids. That's just a symptom of a greater disease. The real pervasive problem is lack of interest from adults. They're the ones with disposable income. They're the ones I want as my target demographic if I'm going to create an entertainment franchise.

That's the genius behind the successful entertainment industries: appealing to a wide demograhic.

I agree with you on the lack of interest in adults. Somehow most people don't want anything to do with comics anymore when they are adults. All of a sudden comics are for children. I have always hated this and defend it every time I'm asked why I am so into comics at my age? Adults do have the disposable income, you are very right, but there have to be kids getting interested in comics to build a possible new "fan-base". If kids don't engage in sports activities or don't go to a game, you can kiss all your baseball and football teams goodbye...............tickets to the games are also sold to adults mostly, they have the money.
I'd want an audience of both worlds really. You complain about comics only offering superheroes, but only want an adult audience.........does not go together well don't you think?

What does all this have to do with Stan Lee? Well, by all accounts he's the George Washington of Superheroes. He was one of those Powers-That-Be that wanted to stake the future of the industry on a narrow, fickle demographic. If he's goiing to take all the accolades (and he will, believe me), then he needs to shoulder his share of the blame as well.

He filled a gap and made superheroes popular again, because his approach was somewhat different. The right man at the right time with the right ideas. Other things had been done before. But they can be done again. I agree on the lack of diversity in American comics. I know it can be different, hailing from Europe.
But somehow nobody really jumps into it.................another Stan Lee is needed to kick this industry in the nads, shake it awake.......the sales numbers speak for themselves.

[BurgundyTears]

Originally posted by Bakema NL
No, he didn't invent the medium, but he gave it a much needed injection nobody has ever repeated since really. If only there would be a Stan Lee now, in modern form, comics wouldn't be in the trouble they are in right now.
Personally I'm more of the school of thought that comics are suffering because of the streamlining starting with a coalition of publishers creating the comics code (despite being cleared from charges in congress) as a means to get rid of the best-selling, high-quality 'alternate' titles from their strongest competitor. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were then strongly responsible for keeping this comparatively narrow subject somewhat interesting to the readers, which led to no neccessary reforms about the published content for decades to come. In comparison Osamu Tezuka completely revolutionalised the japanese market by completely reinventing the medium in an extreme variety of genres and kick-starting the all-audiences friendly worldwide spreading of the manga market. In this way, I think Lee has basically helped to both save and disfavour the market at the same time.

Sure, the man has had his day, but his significance can not be overseen or disrespected. Remarks like "he's no Bendis" are ridiculous.........Bendis is no Shakespeare...so what? Another guy, another era.
Agreed.
And it's not about Stan finally getting the profits he deserves because of not getting his due as a comics creator. It's just about money being promised, as an arrangement.
True, either he's been clever, Perelman's been stupid or both. I wonder which of them came up with the idea?
Be honest, you would go after it too.
Yup I would, but if I already had made around 30 Million dollars for creating some scientific patents, that would by far satisfy my concerns for me and my family's personal comfort and I wouldn't see the need for another 400 Million. I'd likely see it as a lack of basic human decency to not use the opportunity to donate them to reliable charities, when so many hundreds of millions are starving, in need of medicine, etc. It could also save widespread tracts of rainforest, help to finance installation of pollution-restricting filters in 3'rd World factories, could help children in sweat shops or women in sexual slavery rings out of their predicament and so on, while all I could do with it for personal use would be to build a 5 times bigger palace than the current estate. It would be pointless wealth as a point of interpersonal competition and greed, instead of personal need and while I have very high demands on myself and would gladly amass that kind of wealth to get the opportunity to help, I never saw the point of building a money-bin. Of course, for all we know this could very much be what Lee has in mind. To all accounts he's a pretty liberal guy, so it's entirely possible that he wants to have some money to testament to existing or to-be-existing funds or charities. :confused:

And yes, he seems to have lived a good life thanks to his comics work and others haven't..........the way of life really. Stan was lucky.....or smarter.
Yup. life is a bitch that way. Those who deserve happiness through the purity of their motivations seldom get it, unless they're scientists and those who completely lack any self-restricting morals will have a lot easier time to completely rationalise any extreme of action without a second thought or manipulate and stab people in the back without giving a single guilt-based frown or dissonance in the voice to give away their intent. Though I've never been a fan of the idea to just become part of the laisses-faire bit of the problem instead of at least trying to keep up some kind of ideals when you get the opportunity.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
The overall problem is that comics are not perceived as an adult medium by the mainstream in this country. The fact that bad superhero comics outsell good adult comics is because adults simply aren't looking for their entertainment in this industry.That sounds like a failure of the customers, not of the publishers, and certainly not of one specific guy.
It's an industry-wide failure in Marketing that can be traced back to the dominance of the Big Two. They envisioned an industry dominated by superheroes because that's the model that favored them at the time, and by God, they got it.I think you've got the cart and horse backwards here. Marvel and DC did not become The Big Two and then proceed to publish superheroes. They became The Big Two because they were publishing superheroes, which there were and are customers for. There were other companies that focused on things besides superheroes, and many of them failed because they didn't get a sufficient audience for what they were presenting. At this point, some publishers are having success with everything from Peach Girl to Persepolis, and the existence of superhero books doesn't appear to have stopped that.
You seem to want to give Stan some kind of alibi.I have yet to see any sort of rational, knowing accusation that he needs defense from. If you want to paint Stan as some sort of invisible overlord of comics who could prevent other publishers from putting out comics aimed at adults and who could've forced adults to buy comics but didn't... well, that doesn't accord with reality that I can see.

If Stan is, on the other hand, a guy who was editor-in-chief and then publisher of a line that tried a lot of things, but had its biggest success with superheroes -- I have trouble seeing the problem with that. I really do.

If you want cite some specific action of Stan's to take issue with, please do.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by GossAmerica
Yes, poorly written title.Such things happen at the big news sites as well, so it should come as little shock. CNN.com has had the headline over the past couple days "Biology used to make tiny robots", leaving one to wonder why it stopped!

[BurgundyTears]

Originally posted by Bakema NL
There is no-one with some kind of new idea to give the industry a much needed kick in the butt. Stan came up with some new stuff, or new approach.
Well, Erik Larsen has stated that he's trying to find the submissions that have the potential to widen or diversify the current market, but he's only one person and apparently has to sift through thousands of entries to find one that's even passable. Creators and would-be-creators in general seem at a loss for workable projects or just go to France or Japan with their ideas instead. ;)

[Bakema NL]

[i]Yup I would, but if I already had made around 30 Million dollars for creating some scientific patents, that would by far satisfy my concerns for me and my family's personal comfort and I wouldn't see the need for another 400 Million. I'd likely see it as a lack of basic human decency to not use the opportunity to donate them to reliable charities, when so many hundreds of millions are starving, in need of medicine, etc. It could also save widespread tracts of rainforest, help to finance installation of pollution-restricting filters in 3'rd World factories, could help children in sweat shops or women in sexual slavery rings out of their predicament and so on, while all I could do with it for personal use would be to build a 5 times bigger palace than the current estate. It would be pointless wealth as a point of interpersonal competition and greed, instead of personal need and while I have very high demands on myself and would gladly amass that kind of wealth to get the opportunity to help, I never saw the point of building a money-bin. Of course, for all we know this could very much be what Lee has in mind. To all accounts he's a pretty liberal guy, so it's entirely possible that he wants to have some money to testament to existing or to-be-existing funds or charities. :confused: [/B]

Hmmmmm, not sure about this. If it would be money due to me, I would go after it, even if I already had 30 million in the bank to last me through more than one lifetime. It's about the principle then. If an arrangement was made, all people involved should act fair and meet the demands of that arrangement. And you sound like a samaritan, nothing wrong with it really, but tell me of one millionaire who thinks much the same as you..........hard to find I think and there are those among them who come from utter poverty. They could do good with that money..........maybe they do more good with it than you and I know. Because if they go public with do-good acts for Africa or whatever, you always hear the remarks........"oh, another rich ass sending some money all for his own good publicity".....these people never do good it seems, there's so much jealousy in the world. It's their own decision what they do with the money and it's great if they do some good with it. But all the millionaires can't be held responsible for all the "wrongs" in the world, nor does all the money solve the problems really.

[BurgundyTears]

Bill Gates thinks the same way I do and has created an efficient fund for giving out medicine to 3'rd World children and testamented virtually all his assets to various charities. I don't think this is an exceptionally moral viewpoint. I've met plenty of people who dedicate their entire existences to helping others without good compensation, now those guys are samaritans. On the other hand a guy my father knows who has amassed a few hundred millions is able to donate quite a lot of it without restricting his personal comfort in the least. He's pretty average in the moral department, as I see him at about my own level. It just seems like basic responsibility to my view.

Given some basic research and good contacts you can easily find ways to make the money truly matter. If someone doesn't even have the basic ethics for that he/she most definitely don't deserve the self-indulging opulence he strives for, because, like it or not, the 1'st world is ultimately benefitting greatly at the expence of labour for raw products from the 3'rd one, while these countries and citizens are getting into greater debt by being dependent on the refined products we manufacture through their contribution. If you are at the top, you've ultimately benefitted the most from those furthest down and have some responsibility to soothe their suffering. I wouldn't want dead children, raped women or destroyed environment on my conscience if I had the chance to help and neither would the industrialist friends of my father's. But they may be in the minority and I live in Sweden, so what do I know? :confused:

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Bakema NL
There is no-one with some kind of new idea to give the industry a much needed kick in the butt. Stan came up with some new stuff, or new approach.

Not exactly, there are people like Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Howard Chaykin, etc. The problem is that is you're going to work in this industry, you basically have to work in superheroes. It's my belief that the people that you're hoping for are working in different fields because writing superhero adventures isn't interesting for them.



People outgrowing the product happens, with a lot of things. But it doesn't happen with movies much, most are moving comics anyway and the crowds keep on coming.

Can't go there with you. Most movies are way more sophisticated than a given American superhero story. But I'll grant you that comics don't hold a monopoly on purile storytelling.

I love comics. I have thousands. But if you told me I had to give up either movies or television or books or comics, comics would lose in a heartbeat, hands down. I'd decide before you even finished the sentence.



Outgrowing the product, in the case of comics, is mostly between the ears, or other people talking you into it.....out of it really...you must know them.


Can't agree with you here either. As you get older, read more, attain more experience, you tend to become more mature and thus more demanding of some level of overall quality in whatever it is you're spending your time with whether it's a book, movie, comic, whatever. Only if you find that you've outgrown a certain author or filmmaker, it doesn't turn you off on books or movies, because they haven't locked themselves into a certain genre.

No one "told" me I was outgrowing superheroes, I figured it out all by myself.


A much heard complaint is there is no next wave coming into comics shops, so the pre-adolescent-to-young male demographic are growing older and there are not that many new ones coming in.


A lot of this is because they're off playing X-Box or PlayStation, and, more importantly, saving their money to buy or rent the latest hot game. There's not alot to be done about this, except to appeal to a wider demographic.

However, I believe that the industry strategy will be to create movie properties and try to survive off of that.


I'd want an audience of both worlds really. You complain about comics only offering superheroes, but only want an adult audience.........does not go together well don't you think?


This is the real rub. It's hard to attract adults and change your public perception when you're going around screaming "The Incredible Hulk!" "Superman!" "Batman!" "Spiderman!" "X-Men!" at the top of your lungs to anyone within earshot.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
That sounds like a failure of the customers, not of the publishers, and certainly not of one specific guy.


No, no, no, no, no. Bad marketing is not the fault of the consumer, it's the fault of the marketer, whose job it is to attract consumers. LOL! It's not the job of the consumer to find industries, it's the job of the industry to cultivate consumers! The only people who feel the way you do are, well, piss-poor marketers.

As far as the rest of it goes, I'll stand by the John Wayne example that I gave earlier. If Hollywood had just focused on primarily one genre at the expense of all others, the film industry would not be where it is today.

The Big 2 have been calling the shots in the industry as far back as I remember, and still do so today. They deliberately steered the industry in the direction that favored them. It was a great strategy for the short-haul, but a poor strategy for the long haul. I don't feel bad for placing the state of the industry at their doorsteps.

And as far as Stan's personal role, well, like I said, if he's an industry giant, than he can take some of the blame for the state of the industry. If he's not responsible, than maybe his rep as an "industry giant" is overblown. (I believe the former, but that's just me.) Stan Lee was the front man for one of the Big 2 for a damn long time. If he wasn't responsible for what was going on there, then he's a big phony.

And as far as being an "Invisible Overlord", who said he's invisible? LOL! He's been front-and-center the whole time. That's why it's easy to take him to task for it. What, are you going to tell me he was against the industry's preoccupation with superheroes?

If there's one single person who can be held accountable for the public perception of comics in general and Marvel Comics in particular, it's Stan Lee. If not Stan Lee, who?

[Len Cage]

Originally posted by reddragon1978
Stan Lee days are over. Go ahead and give the guy the money...but stay the hell out the the comics. They should just get rid of Stan Lee presents in all the Marvel titles.

Stan Lee did give marvel the characters....but he will never be Brian Bendis or Warren Ellis!

Yes...he did participate in historical events...but as history so should be Stan Lee....his days are numbered.

I give the guy until he's 110years old and no more...marvel stocks will soar with the extra 1million dollars they waste on the likes of Stan Lee!!!

This comment is too much for me to handle. Why were my comments blocked but not this filth. Have you no dignity reddragon1978

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
No, no, no, no, no. Bad marketing is not the fault of the consumer, it's the fault of the marketer, whose job it is to attract consumers. LOL! It's not the job of the consumer to find industries, it's the job of the industry to cultivate consumers! The only people who feel the way you do are, well, piss-poor marketers. No. The wise marketer starts by making a product that the people are going to want -- not by making some product that serves someone else's political goals and then desperately trying to make them want it.
The Big 2 have been calling the shots in the industry as far back as I remember, and still do so today.Really? They tell me what to do? They tell Tokyopop what to do?

Nope.

They publish work that people want -- and other publishers who can do the same can certainly sell well.
They deliberately steered the industry in the direction that favored them.Awww, did they sell things people would buy?

And if you think they steer the rest of the industry toward superheroes -- nope. If anything, they make that a very hard front to compete on, effectively encouraging other publishers to look elsewhere.
And as far as Stan's personal role, well, like I said, if he's an industry giant, than he can take some of the blame for the state of the industry.And do you blame Elvis for not making opera more popular?
Stan Lee was the front man for one of the Big 2 for a damn long time. If he wasn't responsible for what was going on there, then he's a big phony.And again, if you want to actually say SOMETHING HE DID that you're accusing him of... but no. Apparently, he's famous, so he's to blame for comics not being exactly the way you want them to be.
That's why it's easy to take him to task for it. What, are you going to tell me he was against the industry's preoccupation with superheroes?He wrote and published many other things, even after Marvel's superhero line was thriving. I think it's ridiculous to assume that he wanted those other projects to fail.
If there's one single person who can be held accountable for the public perception of comics in general and Marvel Comics in particular, it's Stan Lee.The public's impression of comics as kiddie fodder predates Stan's running Marvel. Really. And Stan hasn't run the Marvel comics line for most of your life.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
And do you blame Elvis for not making opera more popular?


Dude, you're starting to spew nonsense.

But that's OK. As a frequent critic critic of the industry, I'm used to running into conflict on this board.

So which is it? Stan was a major power player, or a big hypocrite who only pretended to be a major power player? Has to be one or the other.

[dr_doomy]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
So which is it? Stan was a major power player, or a big hypocrite who only pretended to be a major power player? Has to be one or the other.

I remember hearing this line of reasoning once from a youth pastor determined to convince me something or other about Jesus.

[smileyguy]

Originally posted by BurgundyTears
Well, Erik Larsen has stated that he's trying to find the submissions that have the potential to widen or diversify the current market, but he's only one person and apparently has to sift through thousands of entries to find one that's even passable. Creators and would-be-creators in general seem at a loss for workable projects or just go to France or Japan with their ideas instead. ;)

Erik has my respect in constantly finding ways to appeal to the larger market (particularly kids). However, I am sure there are others doing the same... what they need to do is to consolidate their efforts. Create an environment that encourages creators to broaden their work appeal. :)

I remember hearing this line of reasoning once from a youth pastor determined to convince me something or other about Jesus.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. It does, doesnt it?

[crunch-o-matic]

If you let Stan ramble on long enough he'll tell you he co-created the Sun and Moon.

He seems to have a real sketchy memory of who created what until the millions rack up. Couple that with the fact he hasn't touched the characters in almost more than 20 years I don't think he deserves any windfall movie money.

He also has a history of bad business deals and I'm sure any contract he signed was a crappy deal and now wants to try for more.

I'd just tell him to go back in time, hire a secretary and a better lawyer....

and quit while he was ahead.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
Stan was a major power player, or a big hypocrite who only pretended to be a major power player? Elvis was a major power player in music -- and he was so because he managed to bring the audience something that they found they wanted. Had he tried to bring them opera as well, it is quite unlikely that they would have been nearly so successful.

Stan became big by successfully bringing a line of superheroes to the audience. He tried bringing many other things -- that they were not all successes does not diminish his success with the superhero nor his importance.

That he did not devote his life trying to rework the comics field in your image of it is a pretty darned shallow basis for criticism.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crunch-o-matic
Couple that with the fact he hasn't touched the characters in almost more than 20 years I don't think he deserves any windfall movie money.You may want to check that "fact"; during that 20 years, you'll find Stan working on the most widely read print version of Spider-Man going, the daily comic strip.
He also has a history of bad business deals and I'm sure any contract he signed was a crappy deal and now wants to try for more.Try for more? Check the contract. He appears to be simply asking for what his contract guarantees. And the court agrees.

Whenever a comics company is asked to live up to their agreements, someone seems willing to gripe about it.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
Elvis was a major power player in music -- and he was so because he managed to bring the audience something that they found they wanted. Had he tried to bring them opera as well, it is quite unlikely that they would have been nearly so successful.

Stan became big by successfully bringing a line of superheroes to the audience. He tried bringing many other things -- that they were not all successes does not diminish his success with the superhero nor his importance.

That he did not devote his life trying to rework the comics field in your image of it is a pretty darned shallow basis for criticism.

OK, I see what your saying now, but your logic is flawed in choosing Elvis as an allegory to the music industry. Elvis was always and ultimately a performer, and that's all he was. A great performer, but a performer. A better example would have been Clive Davis, Berry Gordy, Phil Spector, etc. who were the real power players in that industry.

Bringing up opera was also a poor choice because opera is not "mainstream", which is what I'm talking about. You keep talking about "my vision", as if it's some bizarre thing.

All I'm talking about is bringing comics into the mainstream, which I don't think is either bizarre or undesirable. I'll bet the executives around the comics industry wish the industry was more mainstream. If the comics industry was more mainstream, comics would be more affordable because the industry would have better economies of scale. Instead, comics are now three dollars apiece and the industry is pricing itself right out of it's target demographic.

Edit:
Anyway, there's no need to go on bickering about this ad nauseum. As I said earlier, I'm used to being viewed as a heretic on this board.

[DarkJared]

Originally posted by DarkJared
In THIS case though Marvel does stupidly owe him money because they wrote it into his contract

Wow - a LOT of you don't like to read eh? I totally agree with Stan Lee on this issue. He's owed money because Marvel agreed to pay it.

I DON'T think he's owed the money from a philosophical point of view. Marvel shouldn't have made the contract to begin with and should have dumped him a long time ago. Yes, yes, he's the father of modern comics and so on but he got paid in the first place.... WHY is he owed anything further? And others brought up a big point - if HE's owed then why doesn't Ditko and Kirby's estate get their due - they did more work than Lee did. In those days, the artists drew the comics first then the writer gave them the words. By technicality, Ditko invented Spider-Man not Lee and Kirby invented the Fantastic Four, not Lee and so on.... He just gave them a voice.

What ticks me off about Lee is that he's always taken credit for the hard work of others and they got screwed because they weren't as greedy as him. Now THAT's a "Shameful Scheme".

And no, I'm not a hypocrite. If I did work for an agreed to price, when I was done, I'd take my pay and be happy for the job. If that work went on to generate billions, I'd be pleased and build upon the personal fame it generated for my future work instead of what Stan did which was stop working and demand tons of money for all that already paid for work. That and I'm NOT American. Money and power isn't the be-all-end-all of my national 'dream'. I know it can be hard to understand other cultures. That's why it's just easier to invade and kill them instead.

Why isn't Stan doing the same great work now if he was sooooo great? Because Kirby is dead and Ditko won't return his calls.

(Cool - this is fun! This is the first flame thread I've been a focus of! Didn't realize the Stan Lee fan club met here.)

[crunch-o-matic]

Daily Spider-man? You think he truely, actually, really, honest to goodness writes it and that it has direct influence over the direction of Spider-man for the last 20 years?

....and most widely read?..probably a debate in there somewhere.

I would say that you are little too eager to believe.

I am too. Hell, I'd like to think that Stan is half as good as he tells it.


Anyway, as I remember the contract, 10% of the profits is to go to him which can show as zero, which is a bad contract and now he wants more. I have no problem giving someone what they are contractually due, I do have a problem with re-writing it after it was done and claiming foul.

Shame on Stan for not having a better lawyer, shame on Marvel for shafting an old man.

[Bakema NL]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
Not exactly, there are people like Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Howard Chaykin, etc. The problem is that is you're going to work in this industry, you basically have to work in superheroes. It's my belief that the people that you're hoping for are working in different fields because writing superhero adventures isn't interesting for them.

The guys you mention appeal to adults, not exactly to the kids. Stan Lee appealed mostly to the kids back in the day and not to adults (correct me if I'm wrong)......because comics are still regarded for kids only, then and now....grumble. People in other fields can be ok, but fresh ideas can be conceived by the people in the industry already. I wonder if the superhero problem (if you call it that) is due to the publishers or more to the audience.........comics are products, demand and supply, so you would say it's mostly the audience at fault here.
And those other people you talk about don't think too high of comics either, because of the general view about comics, but who knows what they could do with the genre if they would take the plunge.............but they don't, it's kiddie stuff.
And they could do other things if that is more interesting to them, shifting away from superheroes.............but here the audience comes to mind, do they really want it? A new audience maybe, but you still have that general view that just doesn't get away, even after 100 years of comic strips.

Can't go there with you. Most movies are way more sophisticated than a given American superhero story. But I'll grant you that comics don't hold a monopoly on purile storytelling.

I love comics. I have thousands. But if you told me I had to give up either movies or television or books or comics, comics would lose in a heartbeat, hands down. I'd decide before you even finished the sentence.

I don't think movies differ that much from comics. Of course there are sophisticated movies out there, but there are some of those gems in comics too.........not that many, on that I agree. I wouldn't trade comics for movies........luckily I don't have to choose, I enjoy both very much. And I enjoy the "simple" action flick just as much as a movie like say Memento, only on another level. It's the same with comics, I like a nice Spiderman story, but also the entire Sandman run.

Can't agree with you here either. As you get older, read more, attain more experience, you tend to become more mature and thus more demanding of some level of overall quality in whatever it is you're spending your time with whether it's a book, movie, comic, whatever. Only if you find that you've outgrown a certain author or filmmaker, it doesn't turn you off on books or movies, because they haven't locked themselves into a certain genre.

Of course this can happen and rings true. But I can still enjoy comics and games etc. Because I know what to expect. I'm not going to read a comic for the mind-boggling experience....although there is some stuff that might do that for you. For something more demanding there's plenty of other stuff, mostly in books imo and the occasional movie. Attaining more experience/maturity/intelligence is not something that has to hold you back from comics, quite the contrary......but you still read them, you know that.
American comics don't have to be locked in a certain genre. Just look at manga and the European comics. All three have their own strengths, you Americans should never abandon superheroes totally, because you do them so damn well. But more diversity would be welcome, without the different things looking like the superhero books.

No one "told" me I was outgrowing superheroes, I figured it out all by myself.

When I was way in my teenage years I thought exactly the same about European comics like Lucky Luke, Asterix and Bob and Bobette.....the funny strips. But you know, I was so wrong about that, I only found that out later, when I got into my early 20's.........luckily I figured that out without losing too many years.

A lot of this is because they're off playing X-Box or PlayStation, and, more importantly, saving their money to buy or rent the latest hot game. There's not alot to be done about this, except to appeal to a wider demographic.

However, I believe that the industry strategy will be to create movie properties and try to survive off of that..

You are very right.......games, among other things. Games seemed to go the same way as comics, kids and young people only, but it looks like that has turned around, the average age of the player is 29....somewhere around that. But there are still an awful lot of people thinking much the same about video games as comics, for kids only. Funny thing is a lot of these people have enjoyed a Spiderman movie in the theaters. There really are a whole bunch of people wanting to like comics and other things, but don't want to give into it because of their surroundings, afraid they'll be mocked for liking the "kiddy" stuff.
Concentrating on the movie properties is short-term only, it's a trend and it will pass eventually.

This is the real rub. It's hard to attract adults and change your public perception when you're going around screaming "The Incredible Hulk!" "Superman!" "Batman!" "Spiderman!" "X-Men!" at the top of your lungs to anyone within earshot.

Yeah, I know what you mean. If only inexperienced people would just pick up a good comic and read it for a change. I'm certain more people would enjoy comics than they themselves could ever suspect.
That's what I meant with comics being in trouble. Young people don't have the dough and/or too many other interests and the adult audience think comics are for kids only.........only the in-crowd faithfully buy the comics........but as they age there are those among them dropping out.
Even with more diversity it's hard to change the perception of comics.

[Not From Around]

It is odd that some of Stan Lee's detractors here seem to think that the only defense against his being the person who wrecked the American comics industry is that he was never really very influential, and is therefore a fraud for claiming to have been. Either way, it makes him a bad guy.

Stan Lee was for many years the main editor of what became the biggest comics publisher in the U.S. He was arguably the person most responsible for creating the characters on which the company's prosperity is based (It's true he never created anything without collaborators--that's hard to do when you're writing comics and can't draw them!). It would be difficult to deny that he was very influential.

"Influential" does not mean "all powerful." Stan Lee did not control the fans or the market. He did not control the other companies. As an employee and not owner of Marvel, he never really had the final say over things there (something to bear in mind when looking at any less than generous treatment of creators Marvel may have perpetrated over the years). He co-created and marketed what turned out to be a number of highly successful superhero characters, and naturally put out more of these becuase they sold well. Saying "Stan Lee was influential in making superheroes big again" is not the same as saying "Stan Lee ruined the American comics industry by making it all about superheroes and nothing else."

There is no simple and definitive answer as to why superheroes came so to dominate American comic books. It happened over a long period of time and involved a number of factors--changing tastes, the changing economics of the comic book marketplace, the decisions of many different people. No single person or trend can be blamed or credited for the development.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Not From Around
There is no simple and definitive answer as to why superheroes came so to dominate American comic books. It happened over a long period of time and involved a number of factors--changing tastes, the changing economics of the comic book marketplace, the decisions of many different people. No single person or trend can be blamed or credited for the development. (edited for brevity)

You make some good points, and I do agree that Stan didn't do it himself and there were several causes for it.

However, I'm not willing to give him a pass for those reasons. Just because you're one man in a sea of men is not an alibi.

I accept that he was a virtual figurehead for a lot of the time at Marvel. I'm not ignorant of that fact. I'm also aware that Marvel's had several ownership changes, with the only thing in common that they were all ham-fisted greedhounds who only understood the words "market-share". I'm not laying it all at his feet, just a nice, heaping shovelful.

Stan's alway been (and alway will be) more than happy to take the credit (and money) for all the good stuff, so he's immune from taking any blame? If he wasn't so adept at taking credit I probably wouldn't have much of an axe to grind w/ him.

Stan Lee's made a career out of being Marvel's front man. As such, he can afford to take some shots. If you don't want to get shot at, don't walk point. Quit feeling so sorry for him, he's been well paid for his efforts.

I do think that not recognizing that the Big 2 shape what goes on in the industry, and more important, the mainstream perception of the industry, is a bit naive. They're two behemoths that dwarf everything else on the landscape. They call the tune. No others need apply. To say that they don't control the audience and other companies is technically acurate, but you can hear the breathing in the background. I'm sure anyone who worked for Malibu would agree. Or Crossgen. Or (insert your favorite defunct comics company here). In my opinion the only startup business more foolhardy than an airline is a comic book company.

{Side note: Am I the only one who's sick and tired of this site logging them out when trying to edit a chat entry? }

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
Bringing up opera was also a poor choice because opera is not "mainstream", which is what I'm talking about.At the time Stan was in charge of Marvel, opera was far more mainstream in this country than longform comics aimed at adults.
If the comics industry was more mainstream, comics would be more affordable because the industry would have better economies of scale. Instead, comics are now three dollars apiece and the industry is pricing itself right out of it's target demographic.Actually, that seems quite unlikely. One of the things that have held comics back over the years is their low price; retailers have been reluctant to carry comics because of the low profits to be made. (Busiek argues quite well that a major mistake was made when comics decided to decrease length rather than increase from the ten cent price, making them less profitable for the magazine outlets than other magazines that raised their price.)

I also think you're estimation of the degree of effect the "big two" currently have on the mainstream perception of the industry. Yes, they are by far the biggest thing -- in the comic book stores. Get outside of that, and you'll see Archie being the most visible player in the magazine sales market, and TokyoPop taking that position in the bookstores, the more "mainstream" outlet.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crunch-o-matic
....and most widely read?..probably a debate in there somewhere.If you want to try to make the argument, feel free. But as it's the most successful adventure strip and in hundreds of papers, it's apt to be a tough argument to make.
Anyway, as I remember the contract, 10% of the profits is to go to him which can show as zero,No, they can't show as zero. That's what these ruling just said. If you want to read the full text of the ruling, you can find it (with some formatting problems) at www.comicsreporter.com)
which is a bad contract and now he wants more.No, it's a good contract, and he seems to want what's in his contract. You may want to read up on the case. Despite your desire to apply the concept of "Hollywood profit" to this, that definition of profit gets applied because it's in the profits that Hollywood has folks sign. It is not, however, in Stan's contract.
I have no problem giving someone what they are contractually due, I do have a problem with re-writing it after it was done and claiming foul.Then you may want to read up on this case. Really. No rewriting going on here.
Shame on Stan for not having a better lawyer, shame on Marvel for shafting an old man. Stan had a lawyer that got him a very lucrative contract, and a lawyer who got the court to hold up that contract. Your carping against the lawyer seems based in some universe that does not exist.

[tyopot]

Originally posted by LabRatMan
Stan Lee deserves the money.
Especially with Marvel charging 3 bucks a comic now, they certainly have bled us enough to pay him.
Or they will use this as an excuse to raise the prices even higher.....either way, I'm just glad to see that they have to fork over some money for a change.


HELL YEAH.stan lee deserves that money.hell,jack kirby too.steve ditko too and all the rest who built the foundations of marvel comics.

those bastards who are running marvel today with their suits and tie should pay him what he deserves.and i hope that ditko and the rest also get their share.

when the hell are they going to pay him?whne he`s gone?everyone should boycott marvel !!!!

[King CBR]

It seems like a lot of issues are bouncing around on this thread, from the rights of Stan's co-creators to what Stan is actually being paid for, to how good or bad a person Stan Lee is.

My personal opinions on those issues aside, the real issue here is Marvel's contract with Stan, and legally he's entitled to what that contract states and that's that.

As far as the other stuff goes... looking less at the actions of the man and more at the artistic accolades, Stan Lee was vital in the 60's super hero revolution. Some comic fans could care less about the super hero books today, but alot of us enjoy them. Some of us maybe too much. Stan didn't do it alone, but he was essential in creating the Marvel Universe, and influencing the way super hero funny books would be viewed and written for decades. For that alone, he garners my respect.

[crunch-o-matic]

Please. Mary Worth is in hundreds of papers and that means nothing.

Look it is going to get appealed, one ruling means nothing. I'll double down that Marvel let this little 10% slide because it was never going to happen due to acounting.

Both are in the wrong in one way or another, go debate the color of orange juice with someone else.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crunch-o-matic
Look it is going to get appealed, one ruling means nothing.Actually, one ruling means a heck of a lot. And while Marvel claims they will appeal, many such claimed appeals never happen.
I'll double down that Marvel let this little 10% slide because it was never going to happen due to acounting.Marvel didn't "let it slide". They put it in a contract, and then they took it to court. Nothing sliding there.
Both are in the wrong in one way or another I'm missing this: was Stan in the wrong for negotiating a deal where he would get money, or is he in the wrong for expecting the money that he negotiated for and which the court agrees he is owed?

[metr0man]

Marvel signed the fucking contract that said Stan Lee gets 10 %.

NOW PAY THE FUCK UP. This makes me really mad, I thought Marvel was more professional than this. :mad:


How exactly is Stan in the "wrong" in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM crunch-o-matic? For signing the contract way back?

He is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to that 10% percent.

It's in the contract.

Here it is:

f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.



Marvel is trying to screw Stan Lee by weaseling out of their contractual obligations. No ifs ands or buts about it.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
At the time Stan was in charge of Marvel, opera was far more mainstream in this country than longform comics aimed at adults.


So this means your comparison of Elvis' role in music to Stan Lee's in comics was still a good one? I think you should admit this was a bad example and come up with another one if you want to pursue this point. The more you insist on sticking with it, the less credible you seem.


Actually, that seems quite unlikely.

Really? Why, because the comics industry is in such great shape these days?

One of the things that have held comics back over the years is their low price; retailers have been reluctant to carry comics because of the low profits to be made. (Busiek argues quite well that a major mistake was made when comics decided to decrease length rather than increase from the ten cent price, making them less profitable for the magazine outlets than other magazines that raised their price.)


OK, fine. This just backs up my point that the Big 2 (and the industry in general) were foolish to put such an overwhelming emphasis on superheroes. But at the same time everyone tells me "You're wrong. They were so profitable." OK, which one is it? Obviously both aren't true. You can't tell me they did the right thing as an industry, and then use an argument like the one above to back up your point.

I've long been in favor of better quality comics with higher production values, and have said so on boards like this one, only to be shot down with "Maybe you can afford it, but most of us can't." I've found that most people who are into superheroes, juvenile or adult, tend to be people w/o a lot of disposable income.

I also think you're estimation of the degree of effect the "big two" currently have on the mainstream perception of the industry. Yes, they are by far the biggest thing -- in the comic book stores. Get outside of that, and you'll see Archie being the most visible player in the magazine sales market, and TokyoPop taking that position in the bookstores, the more "mainstream" outlet.

Archie comics? You're going to invalidate my argument by bringing up Archie comics?

You seem to be ignoring that I'm talking about the public perception of the comics industry, not what sells best where.
Are you going to try to tell me that Archie comics are bigger in the public's perception of the comics industry than Superman and Spiderman?

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
The more you insist on sticking with it, the less credible you seem.Funny, I could say the same thing about your blaming the ills of comics on someone who generated popular material.
Really? Why, because the comics industry is in such great shape these days?No, because as noted, aiming to keep nominal prices low seems to be damaging to distribution.
OK, fine. This just backs up my point that the Big 2 (and the industry in general) were foolish to put such an overwhelming emphasis on superheroes.No, it doesn't. Because the price line holding being done was not just being done by superhero books, nor was the key part of it done at a time when today's "Big Two" were the big two.

You seem to be laboring under some delusion that the industry wasn't trying other things. They tried other things. Really. Most of them failed to be profitable, while there kept being profitable superhero books.

The companies could have cut back on doing the sort of things that sold and did more of the sorts of things that didn't sell, but that would not have been wise business and would not have lent to comics continued survival.

Archie comics? You're going to invalidate my argument by bringing up Archie comics?I'm certainly going to address your claims by reflecting on the true comics industry, not the one you seem to think exists.
You seem to be ignoring that I'm talking about the public perception of the comics industry, not what sells best where.And you seem to act as though that perception is set solely by the product mix of two magic publishers who somehow have the ability to change what's in people's brains and what they enjoy -- power you don't confer to the reality of the comics market, the full array of comics that are out there and what people choose to buy.
Are you going to try to tell me that Archie comics are bigger in the public's perception of the comics industry than Superman and Spiderman?I haven't done the survey, have you? But given the sales data and the placement, it seems to me that the average person who doesn't go looking for comics is more likely to see an Archie comic on sale than a Superman. I certainly would think it foolish to assume that the Archie comics are somehow outside of the public perception.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler
Funny, I could say the same thing about your blaming the ills of comics on someone who generated popular material.


As I've said, as far as I'm concerned, you can't take all the credit and accept none of the blame, at least not in my book. If you want to give him a pass, it's a free country. I'm just not going to.


You seem to be laboring under some delusion that the industry wasn't trying other things. They tried other things. Really. Most of them failed to be profitable, while there kept being profitable superhero books.

The companies could have cut back on doing the sort of things that sold and did more of the sorts of things that didn't sell, but that would not have been wise business and would not have lent to comics continued survival.

I'm certainly going to address your claims by reflecting on the true comics industry, not the one you seem to think exists.
And you seem to act as though that perception is set solely by the product mix of two magic publishers who somehow have the ability to change what's in people's brains and what they enjoy -- power you don't confer to the reality of the comics market, the full array of comics that are out there and what people choose to buy.
I haven't done the survey, have you? But given the sales data and the placement, it seems to me that the average person who doesn't go looking for comics is more likely to see an Archie comic on sale than a Superman. I certainly would think it foolish to assume that the Archie comics are somehow outside of the public perception.


Whatever you think, dude. Archie comics? Really? You sure that's what you want to base your argument on? Archie comics?

When was the last time you heard anybody over the age of eight even discuss Archie comics? I'll bet people who don't have young children who they're buying them for even know they're still being published. Archie comics is not shaping the pubic perception of comics, they're just something cheap to buy for little kids. If they sell well and fill a niche, I'm happy for them, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm not "laboring under some delusion that the industry wasn't trying other things", either. I'm not deluded and I was there for all that. I know Marvel pubished Epic Comics and so forth. The issue is why Marvel is not publishing Epic Comics anymore, and why the industry can't seem to tap that audience, whereas in other countries they seem to be able to. What I'm addressing is the reasons for the failure of those "other things", because of the failure of the industry to attract a larger and more varied demographic.

You're probably going to say something like: "Because it wasn't profitable, so they were smart not to pursue it." I'd say that that's the kind of short-sighted business thinking that has kept them from reaching this demographic. Some things aren't going to be immediately profitable. It doesn't mean that they're not worth pursuing to build markets in the long run. Trying something, not seeing instant success, and abandoning it is not the way to break into new markets. I will say that D.C. has done a much better job of marketing comics to adults mainly because they've committed to it. But the mainstream audience still eludes them, because the audience isn't looking in comic shops for it's entertainment. On the other hand Marvel has flipped flop back and forth forever. They tried it, sure, and I'll give them some credit for trying. But I'm not going to give them a whole lot of credit, because trying and giving up doesn't cut it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: The industry would be better off if it could tap into that demographic. It seems somewhat obvious to me. You seem to think I'm somewhat delusional for thinking so. Whatever.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
If you want to give him a pass, it's a free country. I'm just not going to.And yet, as desperate as you are to find something to accuse him of, you still haven't been able to point to anything except that he was not able to promote all kinds of comics equally. (Of course, if you manage to point to somewhere where Stan takes all the credit for what comics are today, I'd be surprised.)
Archie comics? Really? You sure that's what you want to base your argument on? Archie comics?Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? Or is it merely that you are too ignorant of the position of Archie in the industry to deal with it?
When was the last time you heard anybody over the age of eight even discuss Archie comics?I've heard quite a few such conversations, both by people who are hardcore comics folks and outsiders. Is it possible that you're the one with the problem of superherocentricity?
I'll bet people who don't have young children who they're buying them for even know they're still being published.Some people, yup. Same holds true for Spider-Man. But with the aggressive racking that Archie digests get at supermarkets, Wal-Mart, and other locations, it seems the material that they are most likely to run into.
Archie comics is not shaping the pubic perception of comics,They're not? Since when? And why should I believe you, when it goes against everything I've witnessed.
they're just something cheap to buy for little kids.And that's not part of the perception of comics?
If they sell well and fill a niche, I'm happy for them, but that's not what I'm talking about here.I understand. It doesn't fit in with the reality you're trying to paint, so we ignore it. Forgive me if I don't go along with you.
I'm not "laboring under some delusion that the industry wasn't trying other things", either. I'm not deluded and I was there for all that. Oh, so was it that the publishers only tried to sell things to the public, and didn't force it on them at gunpoint? Really, if you accept that other things were being tried, it seems that your complaint is either that its the publishers fault that the readers didn't accept them, or that the publishers should have driven themselves into bankruptcy (as some did) trying to sell readers comics they didn't want.
I know Marvel pubished Epic Comics and so forth. The issue is why Marvel is not publishing Epic Comics anymore, and why the industry can't seem to tap that audience, whereas in other countries they seem to be able to.Excuse me, I'm not sure which industry didn't tap into that audience. The sort of material that was offered by Epic is still being offered by other publishers. Marvel is pushing their other strengths, but that other publishers haven't had success with similar and even more challenging material.
What I'm addressing is the reasons for the failure of those "other things", because of the failure of the industry to attract a larger and more varied demographic.The industry has by all appearances been attracting a more varied demographic in recent years. "Larger" is a hard thing to judge, since it involves counting people rather than copies sold.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: The industry would be better off if it could tap into that demographic.Which demographic? The adults -- who make up most of the purchasers of Marvel and DC comics? Females, who seem to be the base of TokyoPop's success? Kids who are getting Archies, Comic Zone, The Adventures Of Super Diaper Baby, Nickelodeon Specials?

I really don't see much sign that you know who is buying comics these days.

[crazyhorse01]

Originally posted by Nat Gertler

Which demographic? The adults -- who make up most of the purchasers of Marvel and DC comics? Females, who seem to be the base of TokyoPop's success? Kids who are getting Archies, Comic Zone, The Adventures Of Super Diaper Baby, Nickelodeon Specials?

I really don't see much sign that you know who is buying comics these days.

You may be right. Maybe I don't know who's buying comics these days. But I absolutely know who's not buying them: damn near every adult man and woman, and larger and larger percentages of the kids.

If most of the purchasers of Marvel and D.C. comics are adults, and that may certainly be true, considering they're three bucks a pop, then most of them must be adults who have been reading comics through most of their lives and have carried on reading comics into adulthood. I'm pretty certain it's not because they just all of a sudden at the age of twenty-something decided to start reading Superman and Spiderman and so forth. Some of them are reading Vertigo stuff, but most are reading a large percentage of superheroes (especially in the case of Marvel, which offers very little in the way of adult-themed books except for Kabuki and a few others). Can we agree on that, at least? I think it's a pretty safe assumption, right? (I base this on the sheer volume of superhero material I see at both comic stores and places like WaldenBooks and Barnes and Noble.)

If so, what does that mean? It doesn't mean a net growth in the comics audience, it means a reduction in the size of the audience. It means that the industry is not drawing kids because they can't spend $3 apiece on comics and the industry as a whole can't compete w/ home gaming systems.

Ultimately, what it means in the long run is that their audience is becoming extinct. Those adults are going to fade away, and not be replaced w/ new buyers.

While we're on the subject, how many adults in you're circle of friends, co-workers, relatives, and so forth buy and read comics? The answer for me is 1 (one), not counting myself. That's not very many. That's not "reaching a demographic." That's catching crumbs from the table.

So, where are all these women reading TokyoPop? When was the last time you met a woman who reads TokyoPop? I haven't yet, and I'm not holding my breath. I'm not saying they're not out there, just that the population density is pretty damn small. I know more women who play paintball than women who read comics. That's not "reaching a demographic", either. But that doesn't bother me that much. I'm not expecting women to flock to comics. But if an overwhelming percentage of women are going to think you're infantile if you read comics, that's a real problem (for the consumer and the industry).

But, of course, I'm probably wrong here, also.

I take it as a given that there's going to be a niche market for comics like Archie, etc. for young children. There's no problem with that. Like I said, it's a given. I remain convinced that most people who aren't buying them for their young children aren't aware they're even out there. They're not a part of the public consciousness. They're something parents give their little kids to keep them entertained while they're in the checkout lane.

The problem is that in another ten years or so, that might be all there is.

But what do I know? You're convinced I don't know what I'm talking about. I expect it doesn't matter to you that I'm buying about 20% of the comics that I was buying even five or six years ago. It sure seems to bother my retailer, though. Next time I see him I'll just tell him he's imagining the whole thing (if I can get his attention away from all those women buying TokyoPop).

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by crazyhorse01
You may be right. Maybe I don't know who's buying comics these days. But I absolutely know who's not buying them: damn near every adult man and woman, and larger and larger percentages of the kids. Larger and larger? You know that? Or you think that?
If most of the purchasers of Marvel and D.C. comics are adults, and that may certainly be true, considering they're three bucks a pop, then most of them must be adults who have been reading comics through most of their lives and have carried on reading comics into adulthood. I'm pretty certain it's not because they just all of a sudden at the age of twenty-something decided to start reading Superman and Spiderman and so forth. Some of them are reading Vertigo stuff, but most are reading a large percentage of superheroes (especially in the case of Marvel, which offers very little in the way of adult-themed books except for Kabuki and a few others). Can we agree on that, at least?I think a lot of the mainstream superhero reader is carry-through, but I won't claim to know what percentage, nor what age they started at. I'm someone who only read a handful of superhero books before college, which is where many people seem to be introduced to comics.
If so, what does that mean? It doesn't mean a net growth in the comics audience, it means a reduction in the size of the audience.No, because when you're looking at Marvel and DC, you're not looking at the whole audience. You're not looking at the sales of SpongeBob Squarepants Cinemanga, of Betty & Veronica Double Digest, of The Adventures Of Super Diaper Baby, of Comic Zone. If we do not make the mistake of thinking that Marvel and DC are the whole industry, a different picture emerges.
It means that the industry is not drawing kids because they can't spend $3 apiece on comics and the industry as a whole can't compete w/ home gaming systems.Again, "the industry" is not the same as "Marvel and DC". And that $3 figure doesn't seem to be a limit on what kids are buying. Most of the half million copies sold of SpongeBob Squarepants: Bikini Bottom's Most Wanted were probably below the $7.99 list price (since most were sold through Scholastic Book Club), but were most likely more than $3.
While we're on the subject, how many adults in you're circle of friends, co-workers, relatives, and so forth buy and read comics?Plenty.
The answer for me is 1 (one), not counting myself. That's not very many. That's not "reaching a demographic." That's catching crumbs from the table.And if everyone in the US were your friend, then that might be worrisome. As it is, you may need to consider that your friends are not a representative sample.
So, where are all these women reading TokyoPop?All over the country.
When was the last time you met a woman who reads TokyoPop?Friday. (Well, she's a girl, not a woman yet.)
I know more women who play paintball than women who read comics. That's not "reaching a demographic", either.I didn't realize "women you knew" qualified as a meaningful demographic. You may want to try looking beyond just the people you know, to the industry sales info, to talking to retailers, to seeing what's happening in the graphic novel sections at various stores.
I take it as a given that there's going to be a niche market for comics like Archie, etc. for young children. There's no problem with that. Like I said, it's a given. I remain convinced that most people who aren't buying them for their young children aren't aware they're even out there.Archie comics have been around for more than sixty years. Most folks likely had at least some exposure when they were kids. They are racked in high-visibility slots at many supermarket checkouts. I see no reason to believe that folks are ignorant of their existence.
The problem is that in another ten years or so, that might be all there is.Perhaps. At this point,comics sales have been growing for years, and various large mainstream publishing houses are eager to get into the field, having seen some of the success the comics form has in the bookmarket.
I expect it doesn't matter to you that I'm buying about 20% of the comics that I was buying even five or six years ago. It sure seems to bother my retailer, though.Not particularly much. You're one person. When I look at the recent sales increases in the field, I see you're not the standard to go by. (Grabbing the most recent month I have figures for -- unit sales of the top 300 comics through Diamond for November are up 6% from the previous year.)
Next time I see him I'll just tell him he's imagining the whole thing (if I can get his attention away from all those women buying TokyoPop).He may not be selling a lot of TokyoPop; the bookstores did a better job on catching that wave than the comic shops did.

[Allen Smith]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of those people who say that Marvel doesn't owe Stan Lee squat. Stan was suing on the basis of a contract entered into between him and Marvel in 1998, not suing on the basis that he was owed anything based on copyright law or creator's rights. The ruling in this instance was based on Lee's contract with Marvel, the judge ruled that Lee was entitled to ten percent of Marvel's profits on various things due to a clause in Lee's contract granting Lee ten percent. Of course, you have to wonder how the word "profit" will be defined. When Marvel gets a licensing fee on a movie or toy, isn't that profit? Licensing a character doesn't cost Marvel anything, so wouldn't any money Marvel made on such things constitute a profit, and therefore something that Stan is contractually owed ten percent of? Of course, Hollywood accounting is notoriously slick, but if Marvel, for example, takes Sony to court for cooking the books, and wins a lawsuit and gains profits from Marvel movies, Stan can then waltz in and demand ten percent of same.
Pretty nice, huh?

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Allen Smith
Of course, you have to wonder how the word "profit" will be defined. When Marvel gets a licensing fee on a movie or toy, isn't that profit? Licensing fees are addressed separately in Stan's contract.
Of course, Hollywood accounting is notoriously slick, but if Marvel, for example, takes Sony to court for cooking the books, and wins a lawsuit and gains profits from Marvel movies, Stan can then waltz in and demand ten percent of same.Actually, Marvel was pretty smart in the Spider-Man dealings. Having been burned in the past by "Hollywood accounting" on net profit deals, they got a deal that they themselves describe as "gross profit participation". Basically, when you have a net profit deal, there's a definition of profit in the contract that includes all sorts of possible "expenses", and that's where the accounting magic happens.

[Bakema NL]

I'm not expecting women to flock to comics. But if an overwhelming percentage of women are going to think you're infantile if you read comics, that's a real problem (for the consumer and the industry).

You have a point here. I think it's true, a lot of them think you're infantile......and there's gaming and more stuff, don't go mention that. But I don't think it's a problem for the industry alone, it's a problem between these ladies' ears. And guys shouldn't buy into that crap and enjoy what they want to enjoy, it's not like comics are something to enjoy sitting together, it's something you do by yourself. And infantile is only infantile in the eyes of the beholder.
Luckily there are a few ladies here who think comics are ok, but they are kind of rare, pity.