MARVEL SHINES ON 60 MINUTES II

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min1.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Bob Simon" align="right">Marvel and Spider-Man in particular got a chance to shine in Wednesday night’s 60 Minutes II segment entitled “The Superheroes,” with Avi Arad, Stan Lee, and Joe Quesada all expounding on Spider-Man as well as superheroes in general. But the night didn’t belong solely to Marvel – Art Spiegleman and Chris Ware made brief appearances as well.

Correspondent Bob Simon opened the piece with an introduction that focused mainly on the box office draw of Spider-Man, as well as the record-setting revenue generated by the film this summer. “Hollywood is engaging in superhero worship,” Simon added, saying that many more superhero films are in the pipeline.

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min2.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Stan Lee" align="left">From there, the segment moved to Stan Lee, with Simon interviewing the creator at his home in L.A. When asked how he came up with the idea for Spider-Man, Lee trotted out the old chestnut of the character’s creation, saying that he was “just trying to make up some new characters” to keep his job.

While the time spent on Spider-Man’s origin showed panels from both the original issues of Amazing Spider-Man by Steve Ditko and the recent Ultimate Spider-Man re-telling of the character’s origin by Mark Bagley, no artists were mentioned in the discussion of the character’s origin.

Simon picked up on the fact that Lee wanted to give Peter Parker, and therefore Spider-Man, realistic weaknesses and almost neuroses, something which set him at loggerheads with his publisher at the time. The correspondent pointed out how Lee’s creation of a “nerdy, ambivalent loser who had no luck with girls” found its loyal audience with readers who were, essentially the same as Peter.

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min3.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Avi Arad" align="right">From there, the segment went Hollywood, profiling Avi Arad, calling him the “hottest producer in Hollywood.” Simon showed Arad in his various capacities, from the set of Daredevil, too a script meeting for the Namor film.

When asked about the longevity of the Spider-Man movie franchise, Arad said that while he figures he’ll be involved with three sequels to the original film, the franchise will easily outlive him.

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min4.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Quesada draws for Bob Simon" align="left">The segment then moved to the books themselves, with an interview with Quesada. “What we do here is the equivalent of the cavemen sitting around the fire talking about the Great Hunt, or talking about the great God of Hunting,” Quesada said. “It’s no different. We’re just storytellers. And we tell stories of the heroic ideal. It’s that simple.”

The segment moved back to Lee at Golden Apple in L.A., and then offered an opposing viewpoint to superheroes, and introduced Art Spiegelman. Speaking of his Maus, Simon spoke of how graphic novels were coming into their own as an art form, and claimed that the Pulitzer-Prize winning Maus changed comics as much as Spider-Man did.

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min6.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Art Spiegleman" align="right">“Something’s really afoot,” Spiegleman said. “I couldn’t have even said that as clearly six months ago or a year ago, where Maus for instance was seen as an anomaly. Now, Maus is seen as part of a larger picture.”

To further illustrate this point, the segment moved to Chicago and interviewed Chris Ware about the accolades he has received for Jimmy Corrigan.

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min7.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Chris Ware" align="left">Explaining how the graphic novel is carving out a niche for itself both as a literary form and in regards to respect from the mainstream, Spiegleman said, “Now it doesn’t seem like you really have to be ashamed of yourself if you have a comic book in your possession. Before, I’d hide my copies of comics inside a copy of Playboy so nobody knew I was reading one.”

The segment continued by showing scenes from August’s Comic Con international San Diego (where a camera pan of the floor showed a quick glimpse of the DC booth – the only exposure DC received in the entire segment), as Simon explained what the convention was, and how the diehard fans are a smaller group than they used to be, with circulation numbers a fraction of what they were in the ‘50s. The irony, Simon explained, is that now, with fewer readers than ever, Hollywood loves comics.

When asked, Arad speculated that the Marvel movies he’s ushered through Hollywood would ultimately bring in over a billion dollars of revenue. Simon pointed out that Lee would not get much, if any of that, and hasn’t received a penny from the Spder0Man movie.

Lee explained that he created and wrote Spider-Man as work for hire, and explained some of the rights he has as a result of that, but acknowledged that it is painful to dwell on what could have been, so he doesn’t.

Simon then asked Arad if he felt Lee was getting a fair shake, to which Arad responded: “Everybody’s getting a fair shake. It’s years of work by many, many, many people. There’s not one individual that is responsible for all of it. Stan created great characters, and, and, obviously, ask him. I think he’s getting a fair shake.”

Simon did ask him: “Do you feel that you’re being screwed?”

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Marvel/60min8.jpg" width="250" height="188" alt="Stan Lee and Bob Simon" align="right">Lee: “I…I don’t want to say that. I mean, after all, I’m still a part of the company. I love the people. I love the company. And, as I say, I, I, I try not to think of it.”

The segment ended with Lee looking forward to his next projects and reminiscing about the line that he’s perhaps best known for in comics: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

“That’s a line I just tossed off, you know,” Lee said. “And somehow people have remembered it and they’ve quoted it. And I’m delighted about that.”

For CBS’ version of the story, click <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/60II/main527513.shtml" target="_blank"> here</a>

[John Jakala]

Watched the segment last night. While it was interesting, it seemed very shallow. It didn't talk about where to go to buy comic books, or how graphic novels are becoming more available in mainstream bookstores. And I was disappointed that Stan didn't mention Steve Ditko as co-creator of Spider-Man.

Oh, and <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/60II/main527513.shtml" target="_blank">here</a> is the actual link for CBS's full text version of the segment (the link you had just goes to a picture of Joe Quesada).

[JimHughs4]

Did anyone else feel like Lee was mentioning artists, but that was edited out? His answers to questions sometimes included the word "we" when "I" would have been more appropriate. I can't help but wonder what else was edited.

All in all, seemed like a good fluff segment...until the end, when they grilled Lee and Arad about Lee's compensation. If they wanted to bring that up, a little time devoted to it would've been nice. :rolleyes:

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by John Jakala:
<strong>Oh, and <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/60II/main527513.shtml" target="_blank">here</a> is the actual link for CBS's full text version of the segement (the link you had just goes to a picture of Joe Quesada).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah - got that fixed...oops.

MattB

[ZOD]

[quote]Simon then asked Arad if he felt Lee was getting a fair shake, to which Arad responded: “Everybody’s getting a fair shake. It’s years of work by many, many, many people. There’s not one individual that is responsible for all of it. Stan created great characters, and, and, obviously, ask him. I think he’s getting a fair shake.”<hr></blockquote>

That part where he said "There’s not one individual that is responsible for all of it" really pissed me off. There is one individual that's responsible for all of it and that individual is Stan Lee.

ZOD

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by ZOD:
<strong>[b]That part where he said "There’s not one individual that is responsible for all of it" really pissed me off. There is one individual that's responsible for all of it and that individual is Stan Lee.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What about Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, and even Joe Simon, who all, according to reports over the years, had a hand in Spider-Man's creation?

What about John Romita Sr and the other artists over the years that were responsible for the look and classic moments (many of which were lifted and used in the film)?

Holding Arad and Stan's comments up against one another, it's interesting - we're now very clearly (and have been for a while) where popular icons are no longer creations by a single entity, but by a corporation. Of the icons we have today, I'd argue that Walt Disney is the last creator who will ever be associated with his creations, either by the public or by the corporation.

Okay - maybe George Lucas as well, but that's slowly becoming Lucasfilm, and the work of the writers and directors of the movies is largely unremembered, while the Lucas "entity" gets all the credit.

I could just be rambling here though, but that's what I was thinking when Stan was talking about Spidey's origin...

MattB

[Starpilot]

I was somewhat surprised when the story took on the creative ownership tack. Interesting to see Stan Lee of all people championing creator rights. I think Stan's great, but I didn't entirely buy the "victim" angle that he seemed to be playing. Stan was a creative force, but he used the talents of a lot of other comic artists as a stepping stone to become what he is today.

[Ed Cunard]

Just to be super nitpicky:

I didn't like it when Simon referred to the Daredevil movie as "The Daredevil." It seems like a small slight, but it was still incorrect.

I must say that I did find the piece to be better produced and presented than the interview DVD that came out a while back, especially for those not completely entrenched in comic fandom.

Plus, any publicity for the medium is a good thing.

[pyroticstructure]

I want more hulk. the 2 seconds they showed got the blood flowin.

[Rob Staeger]

[quote]Originally posted by Starpilot:
<strong>I was somewhat surprised when the story took on the creative ownership tack. Interesting to see Stan Lee of all people championing creator rights. I think Stan's great, but I didn't entirely buy the "victim" angle that he seemed to be playing. Stan was a creative force, but he used the talents of a lot of other comic artists as a stepping stone to become what he is today.</strong><hr></blockquote>

While it IS weird to see Stan on this side of the creator's rights divide, it's not inappropriate. All the creators -- including Stan -- should be able to reap the fruits of their labors. If we invalidate Stan's claim, we invadlidate Steve Ditko's, or Jack Kirby's on the Hulk, or Marv Wolfman's on Blade, etc...

Rob

[Disraeli Gears]

Isn't it funny how Quesada made such a big deal about being on 60 Minutes in the Newsarama articles preceding the show (not to mention the fact that Newsarama and all of the other sites hyped it up to be one big Quesada-fest), and he was on the show for -- what? -- half a minute?

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>not to mention the fact that Newsarama and all of the other sites hyped it up to be one big Quesada-fest</strong><hr></blockquote>

We did? Joe himself, in our chat (one article, not articles) with him pointed out he didn't know how much of his stuff was going to be used..."A lot of that was put on film. How much of it they’ll use, I don’t know – you never know what the edited piece is going to look like at the end of the day until you see the show."

Joe, Stan, and Avi all knew that probably about 5-10% of what they recoreded would be used. We, nor Joe, ever said anything to the contrary.

I mean, if you just want to bitch about something, I'm sure we'll give you something soon, but this time, I think you're reaching.

MattB

[Disraeli Gears]

Yes, you did. Nowhere did you mention Art Spiegleman or Chris Ware's involement in the piece. Did Marvel not want us to know of these creators' participation? It seems like one-sided journalism to me. Why not get these other (ie, NON-Marvel) creators' thoughts on their interviews like you did with Quesada? Does Marvel own you, too (much like they own Wizard)?

[hiphophead]

I thought the piece was great exposure for comic books. Many people will be finding out, that a lot of the new successful movies are based on comic books.

Stan Lee looked like a man who realized he made a mistake (work for hire). Who knew?? 40 years later his co-creation would be worth billions of dollars. This shines the light on Image founders, they put the work for hire as an option, not the only choice.

I would love to see the complete interview with everyone but Avi Arad. How is he still around? Wasn't he part of the coporate raiding of Marvel years ago?

[hiphophead]

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>Yes, you did. Nowhere did you mention Art Spiegleman or Chris Ware's involement in the piece. Did Marvel not want us to know of these creators' participation? It seems like one-sided journalism to me. Why not get these other (ie, NON-Marvel) creators' thoughts on their interviews like you did with Quesada? Does Marvel own you, too (much like they own Wizard)?</strong><hr></blockquote>


If you guys look at the piece, it was primarily a "Marvel" interview. 60 Minutes was plugging the release of DVD version of the Spider-Man Movie. My guess is the other guys were not interviewed by Newsrama, because they did not contact Newsrama and tell them about it. Was Quesada suppose know who else was interviewed by 60 Minutes?

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>Yes you did.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We mentioned that Marvel and Quesada were going to be on a 60 Minutes II segment, and spoke with Joe about it. Hyped as a Quesada-fest? I don't think so. I still think you're reaching for something to complain about. As I said, just wait - I'm sure you'll find something with more meat than this sooner or later...

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>Nowhere did you mention Art Spiegleman or Chris Ware's involement in the piece. Did Marvel not want us to know of these creators' participation?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow - did you read the other article? Y'know - the one where Quesada said he had no idea who else they spoke to, outside of Marvel? Marvel didn't know about them, and neither did we, given that, prior to the show, CBS didn't mention that they were going to be invovled. Hmmm...maybe CBS didn't want us to know about those creators' participation...

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>It seems like one-sided journalism to me. Why not get these other (ie, NON-Marvel) creators' thoughts on their interviews like you did with Quesada?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think I answered that above, because we didn't know about it, and CBS wasn't opening up about it. Short of polling EVERY creator in comics, and asking if they were interviewed by 60 Minutes, we did ask around, and no one knew of anyone else who was interviewed, aside from the fact that they filmed at SDCC and could've spoken to anyone there...

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>Does Marvel own you, too (much like they own Wizard)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL! Doesn't anyone try anymore to come up with something better than this to get a rise out of us?

And when we cover DC too favorably in some people's eyes, we're owned by DC, and the same for Image, CrossGen, Dreamwave, any given creator, retailer, or individual and others, depending upon how badly their nose is bent out of joint related to what we cover.

There was one day not too long ago, where three people posted allegations that we were on the take from three different sources, two of which were in court, squared off against one another...good times, good times...

MattB

[Scott Wherle]

While it was nice to see comics get a little bit of mainstream attention, and not just those based on superheroes, I feel portions of the segment were poorly researched and poorly executed.

The aforementioned "The" Daredevil was minor, but it gave me a little shudder as well. Also, while Maus and Jimmy Corrigan are indeed graphic novels and somewhat of a genre unto themselves, there are also regular ole comics that have varying subject matter that would place them into the category of graphic novels the story created. What I mean is, graphic novels are not the only comics to have themes dealing with heavy or even non-superhero subject matter. I just found it a tad misleading is all.

I also think they could've given a little more screen time to talking about artists, as well as letting people intrigued by the story know how to go about getting comics. My buddy who doesn't really read comics (except the ones I work on) was over at the time this was on and even commented that he wouldn't know where to find comics based on the story. (Side note, he'd read more comics if he could find western comics).

Not a bad story per se (the inclusion of Chris Ware and Art Spiegelman was a nice surprise), but it could've been just a little better.

[Starpilot]

[quote]Originally posted by Disraeli Gears:
<strong>Does Marvel own you, too (much like they own Wizard)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Give 'em a break. Newsarama isn't affiliated with CBS and so could not be expected to know the entire content of the piece. They probably just got their tip from Marvel and announced what they knew about it.

Why is it that everything is a Marvel conspiracy with some people? :rolleyes:

[Grendel Prime]

Chris Ware looks like Erik Larsen with glasses. Nerd.

[Ed Brubaker]

Matt Brady wrote: "Of the icons we have today, I'd argue that Walt Disney is the last creator who will ever be associated with his creations, either by the public or by the corporation."

And of course, most of Walt Disney's creations were all created by other people, most notably, Ub Iwerks, who was an inventor as well as an animator, and who left Disney for a long long time because he felt he wasn't getting enough credit for his work. Even Walt publicly acknowledged that Ub created Mickey Mouse eventually.

See, this shit isn't exclusive to comics.

[shearbrowning]

"Creator rights" people should just remember that without the large comapnies, such as Marvel, footing the bill for a creator to create(i.e. paying the creator a salary, marketing the character, protecting the character etc.)there would be very few characters as popular as "Spider-Man." If Mr. Lee had created Spidy totally on his own, w/o any involvement from Marvel Comics, he would, of course, have a lot more power over his creation but would Spidy really have gotten to be this popular? I kinda doubt it. The Marvel machine pumps a lot of investment money into its characters and without that investment money Spidy would, probably, have never seen the light of day. I'm not saying that all creators that work for large companies should be out of luck, but there is a reason that "work for hire" laws are the way they are. Without "work for hire" laws companies may be inclined to cease paying creators to create, this would have disasterous effects on all future character such as "Spider-Man."

[mojo]

[quote] Yes, you did. Nowhere did you mention Art Spiegleman or Chris Ware's involement in the piece. Did Marvel not want us to know of these creators' participation? It seems like one-sided journalism to me. Why not get these other (ie, NON-Marvel) creators' thoughts on their interviews like you did with Quesada? Does Marvel own you, too (much like they own Wizard)? <hr></blockquote>

seems to me that you're just a total marvel-hater, nothing bad with that, you're entitled to your opinion. but isn't it unfair to put newsarama and matt in particular in the middle of your marvel-bashing ?
like i said, bash marvel all you want, just don't pull innocent bystanders -who are just doing their job- into it.

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Starpilot:
<strong>Newsarama isn't affiliated with CBS</strong><hr></blockquote>

So I can say it? "Dan Rather, you ain't my real daddy!"

And Grendel Prime - you do realize that you're posting on a comic book message board with a handle that is the name of a comic book character and calling someone else a nerd, right? :p

MattB

[Nat Gertler]

[quote]Originally posted by Starpilot:
<strong>I think Stan's great, but I didn't entirely buy the "victim" angle that he seemed to be playing.</strong><hr></blockquote>Watch the interview again; even in the bits they showed (and who knows what was cut out!) the interviewer was steering hard trying to get such a response, and Stan ceded to it only in a fairly slight way.

[LFKittsteiner]

Well, I´m waiting for the reruns in cable here in Chile. It´s a shame that the artists didn´t seem to be mentioned, but the exposure for Spiegleman and Corrigan sure helps a lot.

And... welcome back, guys. I can´t believe that some posters are dissing this site now over this. I bet that on monday, they were freaked out when they couldn´t post their opinions.

LFKO.

[Cray_ws]

Well I'm usually all over Newsarama about their reporting with Marvel, but in this case I'm not. Its obvious Quesada came to Newsarama to inform them of the upcoming 60 minutes interview. This isn't a bad thing, however I think Newsarama shouldv'e interviewed 60 minutes Correspondent Bob Simon about the interview. Another words Matt, don't just take Quesada's word. I'm not saying he did anything wrong. Infact it was nice that Marvel gave you the heads up about the upcoming 60 minutes piece. Next time when this kinda thing happens, Go and get an offical comment from Leno when Kevin Smith is due to be on the show to hype a comic book.

You know you can still go and get an offical response from 60 minutes Correspondent Bob Simon and ask him some hard-hitting questions (he'll think twice before he treats comic books as fluff news). Seriously what's the offical word from Bob Simon ? Ask him what his goals were when he ran that piece? Ask him why he didn't interview any advocates or activist in the field for creators-rights? Go drill him.

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Ed Brubaker:
<strong>And of course, most of Walt Disney's creations were all created by other people, most notably, Ub Iwerks, who was an inventor as well as an animator, and who left Disney for a long long time because he felt he wasn't getting enough credit for his work. Even Walt publicly acknowledged that Ub created Mickey Mouse eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All true, and I probably should've put that in there. I guess my larger point is that outside of Disney, it's hard to think of a creator who's so closely associated with "their" creations.

Who created Buzz and Woody? Pixar to some, Disney to others. Who created Shreck? Dreamworks.

Creators being known for their creations these days is much more the exception than the rule - 9 times out of 10, the corporation is the creator.

Not saying that in itself is good or bad, just sayin...

and finding weird analogies to Wildcats 3.0, which of course was created by DC Comics. :)

MattB

Coca-Cola created Santa, right?

[JimHughs4]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>Watch the interview again; even in the bits they showed (and who knows what was cut out!) the interviewer was steering hard trying to get such a response, and Stan ceded to it only in a fairly slight way.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This does tie in, I promise. Several years ago, Mick Foley, professional wrestler, was interviewed for 60 Minutes (Yup, I'm a wrestling geek AND a comic geek.Amazing how I found a wife). He was shown a video of kids wrestling, all in good fun. The interviewer asked what he thought about it, and Foley reponded that it looked like fun. Then they showed him a second video, showing other kids wrestling but actually hurting each other, drawing blood, jumping off roofs, etc. Foley strongly responded that this was horrible and these kids' parents should put a stop to it. So on the televised segment, they show the second video, the violent one, followed by Foley's response to the first video. Totally misrepresented by the program. All of the preceding information comes from the book Foley is Good.

My point is TV news programs go in with an agenda and cut the interviews and sound bites to make it fit that agenda. I think that Stan Lee is probably well represented by this piece, but I'd still like to know what was left on the cutting room floor.

[Nat Gertler]

[quote]Originally posted by Rob Staeger:
<strong>If we invalidate Stan's claim, we invadlidate Steve Ditko's, or Jack Kirby's on the Hulk, or Marv Wolfman's on Blade, etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>Not really. For most of his key creative career, Stan was in a different position from many other folks: he was an employee of Marvel. Most other comics creators worked on a freelance basis, a different kettle of fish when it comes to ownership.
[quote]Shearbrowning said:<strong>"Creator rights" people should just remember that without the large comapnies, such as Marvel, footing the bill for a creator to create(i.e. paying the creator a salary, marketing the character, protecting the character etc.)there would be very few characters as popular as "Spider-Man."</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually, few comics creators are paid salaries.
[quote]I'm not saying that all creators that work for large companies should be out of luck, but there is a reason that "work for hire" laws are the way they are.<hr></blockquote>Are you truly aware of what the "work for hire" laws are? Are you aware, for example, that it is quite questionable that they can be applied to the standard freelancer-crafted single-story comic?
[quote]Without "work for hire" laws companies may be inclined to cease paying creators to create, this would have disasterous effects on all future character such as "Spider-Man." <hr></blockquote>That hasn't happened in the field of novels, where creator ownership is the rule rather than the exception. And creator ownership has brought forth its fair share of popular comics and characters that have translated to other media: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Spawn, Rocketeer, Road To Perdition, and so on.

[Taylor Porter]

I guess this is a little off-topic, but I've always hated the term "graphic novel." I don't exactly have anything against CBS for using the term, I just know that I'll never use it. It seems like an attempt to pretend that they're not comics, that they're like a novel told in pictures, which is stupid. Maus is a comic, Jimmy Corrigan is a comic, and Spider-Man is a comic, too. There may be a difference in quality, but they still all use sequential art to tell a story.

[D.J. Coffman is your daddy]

Well it's always seemed to me that Stan Lee took alot more credit for shit then he deserved. Alot of those charsters he "created" were mere simple concepts that he'd give to other talents like Kirby, etc, like say.. "I have an idea for a character that is so ugly, deformed and he's hard on the outside like an ugly shelll" Then Kirby went off and drew THING,-- So I guess that's collaborative--- Have no doubt, Lee is a talented guy, but he's half a bullshitter too. For years, I know for a fact, Jack Kirby was really annoyed/pissed at him for taking ALL the credit for alot of works that Kirby nearly invented himself. So I don't want to hear any sissy crying from Lee that he's getting screwed, for years he was involved with spiderman and did shit to get it onto the real big budget big screen, but we have talents like McFarlane who re-energized the character in the 90's, and then Bendis and the new Marvel (Quesada) that have opened Spidey up to a new independent audience-- so those are the guys I think who made this thing a success..

[Kurt Busiek]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>

Who created Shreck? Dreamworks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shrek was created by William Steig; the movie is an adaptation of the book.

kdb

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Kurt Busiek:
<strong>

Shrek was created by William Steig; the movie is an adaptation of the book.

kdb</strong><hr></blockquote>

and that was kinda my point - to know who created Shrek, you need some kind of specialized knowledge (which I'd argue that you have, Kurt...), beyond what's reported. It wasn't "DreamWorks Presents: William Steig's Shrek," it was just "Shrek."

In fact, whenever the media does report on creators, there's always almost a breathy (as Simon did last night) disbelief that a person alone could create such an icon, and the creators are treated as almost an oddity, rather than the primal force behind the creation.

Of course, if the creator makes his own name part of the property's title, then he kinda forces everyone to recognize him {cough, cough, KBAC, cough}.

As far as popular icons go, like Shrek and Spider-Man, I would argue that the the view of the mainstream is that they were created by, and are the sole property of corporations, not individuals.

I may be muddying my point, but I know I had one somewhere...

MattB

[beetle]

Is it just me or do some people have problems with every article newsarama puts out? To me it seems like there is a lot of newsarama bashing out there. If ya don't like it don't read it. :)

btw...anyway i'm happy they had the interviews on 60 minutes II...any press for comics is good press.

[FreelanceJustice]

Hi all,
New here and to be honest, I missed the actual 60 minutes piece.

What I wanted to comment on, though, is the feeling of incompleteness that the piece seems to have given most the posters here.

It makes a great argument for questioning all the reports on topics that you don't have a great knowledge of.

Another reason to form your own opinion based on facts!

-FJ

[Darren J. Gendron]

An opinion and two questions:

First, the only real television journalism I'd trust would be if they were doing interviews live, uncut and uncensored. No editing, no interviewing for hours only for one minute of sound bites. Instead, thoughts, opinions, and the people's own words.

Question No. 1: Who actually does own Newsarama? (Note, one of the best ways to end any doubts of conflict of interest is full disclosure).

Question No. 2: Since there was that nasty crash this past weekend, followed by a massive re-enrollment, how do you verify that "Ed" and "Kurt" really are Ed and Kurt, as well as the other creators that post here.

And by the way, I really am Darren J. Gendron

[MattBrady]

[quote]Originally posted by Darren J. Gendron:
<strong>Question No. 1: Who actually does own Newsarama? (Note, one of the best ways to end any doubts of conflict of interest is full disclosure).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lord...Mike and I own Newsarama.

[quote]Originally posted by Darren J. Gendron:
<strong>Question No. 2: Since there was that nasty crash this past weekend, followed by a massive re-enrollment, how do you verify that "Ed" and "Kurt" really are Ed and Kurt, as well as the other creators that post here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We take their word for it, the same way we do you saying that you are Darren J. Gendron. That, and as admins, we can check their e-mail addressed and make sure they jibe with the ones we've got.

MattB

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>Watch the interview again; even in the bits they showed (and who knows what was cut out!) the interviewer was steering hard trying to get such a response, and Stan ceded to it only in a fairly slight way.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Stan's still a salaried employee of Marvel. What did you expect him to say?!? Do you think he wants to wind up like that Ditko guy? Persona non grata? ;)

[Cliffy]

Ditko is persona non grata at Marvel? I just thought he left them, not the other way around.

--Cliffy

[Monkey in a Wheelchair]

[quote]Originally posted by Grendel Prime:
<strong>Chris Ware looks like Erik Larsen with glasses. Nerd.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Take off the glasses and he becomes Jimmy Corrigan. The quiet, middle-aged one.
But yes, Chris Ware and Erik Larsen and Alex Ross are identical. It's probably evil.
-- chip

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Cliffy:
<strong>Ditko is persona non grata at Marvel? I just thought he left them, not the other way around.

--Cliffy</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stan has always played ball with Marvel and has been richly rewarded for that. Ditko didn't play ball and wasn't rewarded.

[Darren J. Gendron]

Thanks Matt. As a newb to the site, it was a little confusing as to the ownership of the site (and I admit I'm still a little confused with the connections to view askew and Mile High).

[Nat Gertler]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>Stan's still a salaried employee of Marvel. What did you expect him to say?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>I had no expectations... but I'm not the one trying to buy in to the spin that the interviewer was working hard to push and which was only vaguely and reluctantly supported by Stan.
[quote]Do you think he wants to wind up like that Ditko guy? Persona non grata? ;) <hr></blockquote>I haven't seen any sign that Ditko is persona au gratin at Marvel. When are you going to claim that this happened? He certainly got assignments at Marvel after leaving Spidey, and he chose to turn down other assignments that were offered to him. I can't think of anything Ditko has done for Marvel since 1995, but I can't see anything that has happened since then that would have put him in exile.

[arthur pendragon]

Persona non grata-somebody unacceptable as diplomat.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>I had no expectations... but I'm not the one trying to buy in to the spin that the interviewer was working hard to push and which was only vaguely and reluctantly supported by Stan.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't believe for a second that if Stan wasn't still being paid by Marvel that he would've been reluctant to speak more freely, do you?

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>

I don't believe for a second that if Stan wasn't still being paid by Marvel that he would've been reluctant to speak more freely, do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I do. Stan seems very much aware that he serves as an "ambassador" of comics to the folks that aren't already aware of them. I can't think of anything he's said in public that was negative about another person, except in jest (the Brand Ecch comments years ago). Like him or not, it's pretty apparent that he is a gentleman and prefers not to air dirty laundry in public.

--Scott Rowland

[Bklyn Artist]

For the most part the piece was a waste of time. But a great ad for the SPIDERMAN dvd!

It was great seeing the clips of the SPIDERMAN movie. Can't wait to pick up the DVD. And it was great seeing some of the talents associated with the character from Marvel (other then STAN LEE) talk about comics. But if you are going to discuss how great they are doing and what amazing films are currently being filmed. Shouldn't you mention the 40 years of crap we've had to endure. The CAPTAIN AMERICA, PUNISHER, not to mention HOWARD THE DUCK wastes of time. But why do a consise piece when you can do fluff!!!

The most interesting aspect of the interview was the grilling STAN LEE got about compensation for creating SPIDERMAN. How hysterical, watching him 'try to' respond'! What about the artists who helped creat him. JACK KIRBY & STEVE DITKO, shouldn't that also have been discussed?

Anyway, at least it was fun to see the MARVEL offices on television...kool

Neil

[Rob Staeger]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>Not really. For most of his key creative career, Stan was in a different position from many other folks: he was an employee of Marvel. Most other comics creators worked on a freelance basis, a different kettle of fish when it comes to ownership.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a good point, Nat, and one I hadn't considered (and should have, since I've been on both the freelance and employee side of work-made-for-hire). It definitely makes Stan distinct from the others. Something to chew on.

Rob

[Rob Staeger]

[quote]Originally posted by Bklyn Artist:
<strong>

Anyway, at least it was fun to see the MARVEL offices on television...kool

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah... finally a look at the Bullpen, and ... it's an office. Just like offices that half of America works in.

Also, I was fascinated by the information -- complete with footage! -- that Joe Quesada using an elevator. Those crazy, hard-hitting 60 minutes folks!

Rob

[Wade @ Sighnub.com]

Any coverage is good coverage.

And in a weird way, I am glad they threw a little controversy into the piece--makes it seem like comics are an honest-to-god real grown up industry where real humans work. And if real humans work there, real grown-ups, maybe they creat pieces of art that real gorwn-ups might be interested in.

[Dan20]

Very odd to see people criticize Marvel and Newsarama for not mentioning that people like Art Spiegelman would be in the segment.
How would Marvel know what Bob Simon's itinerary was? They merely informed Newsarama of their participation, and the fact that the segment would air.
As for Newsarama, they *could* have gone and digged up everything that would be included, but since the story only came up a couple of days before the show aired, that didn't give them much time. Plus, nowhere did they say that the whole segment would be about Marvel. I think they were quite clear stating they didn't know what the hell it would be about.

[Nat Gertler]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>I don't believe for a second that if Stan wasn't still being paid by Marvel that he would've been reluctant to speak more freely, do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>I certainly wouldn't assume that, nor do I presume to know what it is that Stan would say if he were to speak more freely. Stan didn't speak ill of Marvel's treatment of him when their payments were likely dwarfed by the growing value of whatever part of Stan Lee Media he owned.

[Cray_ws]

[quote]Originally posted by Wade @ Sighnub.com:
<strong>Any coverage is good coverage.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I totally disagree, this kinda mentality is whats wrong with America. It just reeks of greed, There's got to be a line of integrity here. I think we all in agreement that 60 minutes could've done alot better. Instead it was shallow report just to concede with Spider-man DVD release.

-Cray

[Tony T]

[quote]Originally posted by hiphophead:
<strong>
I would love to see the complete interview with everyone but Avi Arad. How is he still around? Wasn't he part of the coporate raiding of Marvel years ago?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Avi Arad is hardly a corporate raider. He was the head toy designer at Toy Biz, and along with Toy Biz partner Ike Perlmutter, helped rescue Marvel from the clutches of corporate raider Carl Icahn. At this point, Ronald Perelman had already driven Marvel to bankruptcy, and Carl Icahn had acquired the company and become Marvel's chairman through a leverage buyout. Who knows, maybe Marvel's bankruptcy could have been avoided if Ronald Perelman had listened to Avi Arad's constant suggestion that the key to Marvel's financial turnaround was making big budget movies with the Marvel characters. I mean, look Avi's success when he was finally given the opportunity to produce the X-Men and Spider-Man movies.

I can't recommend enough Dan Raviv's book "Comic Wars" for gaining insight into the whole Ron Perelman vs. Carl Icahn vs. Toy Biz Marvel bankruptcy spectacle. It's one of the most engrossing non-fiction books I've ever read.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>I certainly wouldn't assume that, nor do I presume to know what it is that Stan would say if he were to speak more freely. Stan didn't speak ill of Marvel's treatment of him when their payments were likely dwarfed by the growing value of whatever part of Stan Lee Media he owned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was the high water mark of Stan Lee Media's stock value contemporaneous with Marvel still paying him a seven figure salary for being a figurehead? Either way, I don't think he's ever going to go public with any discontent by biting the hand that feeds.

Also, and I'm sure some of you will say I'm reading too much into it, but remember when Lee spoke of Mario Puzo and his attempt to write comics prior to The Godfather, and how Lee never got any credit for that gangster opus? I know he was joking but it's not the sort of joke one should make if one has a reputation for assuming more credit than is deserved, then again, maybe that's just the sort of joke one would make if one has a reputation for assuming more credit than is deserved.

[Raphael]

[quote]Originally posted by Slangword:
<strong>
Stan seems very much aware that he serves as an "ambassador" of comics to the folks that aren't already aware of them. I can't think of anything he's said in public that was negative about another person, except in jest (the Brand Ecch comments years ago). Like him or not, it's pretty apparent that he is a gentleman and prefers not to air dirty laundry in public.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


I agree with you 100%. That said, and despite being a big fan of "The Man", I found it very difficult to feel sorry for his "situation".

For many years, Stan was in the driver's seat at Marvel, and in his editorial/managerial position, he was in the perfect place in an imperfect time to influence corporate policy. But, when the chips were down, as in the Kirby artwork fiasco, he made his decision. He knew exactly which side of the fence he was on and, now, his action (or inaction) has come back to haunt him. Ya reap what ya sow, pilgrim.

And doesn't a big screen credit automatically, and legally, require some money to be attached? Even a few thousand dollars(?) is still better than a poke in the eye. Or not having your artwork returned.

[Raphael]

[quote]Originally posted by Nat Gertler:
<strong>I haven't seen any sign that Ditko is persona au gratin at Marvel. </strong><hr></blockquote>

So, would that make Stan the Big Cheese then by default?

[Wade @ Sighnub.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Cray_ws:
<strong>

I totally disagree, this kinda mentality is whats wrong with America. It just reeks of greed, There's got to be a line of integrity here. I think we all in agreement that 60 minutes could've done alot better. Instead it was shallow report just to concede with Spider-man DVD release.

-Cray</strong><hr></blockquote>

The point was that the more people that know about comics the better. And I do agree with you about a line of integrity, but perhaps we disagree on where it lies. I believe that the journalists hold stewardship over that line.

[Nat Gertler]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>Was the high water mark of Stan Lee Media's stock value contemporaneous with Marvel still paying him a seven figure salary for being a figurehead?</strong><hr></blockquote>Not to my understanding. Stan's contract was renegotiated during the '90s when Marvel was trying to save money; they reduced his pay significantly, but in return lifted the exclusivity aspect of his deal. That was key in making Stan Lee Media (and, later, Just Imagine) possible.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by Raphael:
<strong>
And doesn't a big screen credit automatically, and legally, require some money to be attached? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope. Stan Lee gets an "executive producer" credit because he was consulted during production, and Sony wanted to acknowledge that in the opening credits.

Executive producers usually only get payment after the film turns a new profit. Considering a $100 million film in Hollywood costs (on average) $125-150 million to promote, and Hollywood studios only get 50-70% of the box office take -- trust me: I've looked into Hollywood accounting and it's different from everything else -- Spider-Man ain't gonna hit a net profit until Christmas at the earliest.

Besides, 60 Minutes II could have been asking about a creator royalty, which Stan doesn't get -- and the common legend is that Stan is Mr. Marvel, the man who created Spider-Man (something this report doesn't dispell).

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>

What about Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, and even Joe Simon, who all, according to reports over the years, had a hand in Spider-Man's creation?

What about John Romita Sr and the other artists over the years that were responsible for the look and classic moments (many of which were lifted and used in the film)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The answer is already is print, Matt. Go to your local comic store, take down the first volume of each title collected in an Essential collection by Marvel, and look at the first name in the credits. Stan Lee was, for many people, the man who wrote the story. It's definitely his dialogue, you only have to listen to him speak today to hear the same mixture of inflections and corniness he loves to use (and we love to hear).

Plus, there's the added bonus on Lee's part that he has always been the spokesman for Marvel. Of all the creators who have worked so brilliantly on Spider-Man and his world -- from Kirby, Simon and Ditko, to the Romitas, Bendis, and DeFalco -- no face, no voice, no personality is connected more in the public's mind than Stan "The Man" Lee, who narrates comicbooks, speaks passionately about them everywhere he goes, and had his name on every Marvel comic for two decades as "Stan Lee Presents..."

For many people, Lee deserves credit as the man who created the CHARACTER of Spider-Man. Kirby, Ditko, Simon and Romita Sr. are the quartet who are far too unrecognized (at least in my opinion) as the men who created the IMAGE or VISUAL ICON of Spider-Man.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>
Creators being known for their creations these days is much more the exception than the rule - 9 times out of 10, the corporation is the creator.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It always has been. Seriously.

Until the French film scholars of the 1960s -- people like Andre Bazin, Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Goddard -- movies were rarely looked at for their directors. Directors certainly weren't promoted by studios; producers were instead. This is why MGM had the Freed unit ruling it in the 50s but the films are now looked at as Stanley Donen films.

Animation is probably the worst case to bring up, since feature films rarely have one director who designs all of the characters and plots out all of the major actions of the film -- plus has a personality that's recognizable as different from everyone else.

Take Warner Brothers, for example: Chuck Jones is different than Friz Freleng, but both did Bugs Bunny. Their presentation of Bugs is different, their choice of comedy style was different, and yet more people associate Chuck Jones with the WB characters because Jones put his face there when all of the other animators weren't.

It takes a strong personality to get recognized for connection to any of the modern art forms (film, television, comics) -- and those few we have are really people who put their name on top of the masthead like Walter Lantz (on every Woody Woodpecker cartoon when alive), Walt Disney (name of the company) and Stan Lee (on every book for two decades).

[Mr Skeptic]

I was very disappointed by the report. I certainly didn't interpret it as a 'shining' moment for Marvel. Basically the report stated that traditional super-hero comics weren't doing well at all, and that they seemed to only be viable as a subject source for movies. It then went on to suggest that 'graphic novels' were the only form of comics doing well; that these were comics for adults. The inferance being that super-hero comics were for kids. And the part where simon got Avi to say that he was making billions off these characters, juxtaposed with Lee being asked if he felt he'd been treated unfairly, was pretty rough on Marvel. The implications were clear; big corporation run by wealthy mogul making billions from character,screws creator who created character . This was a shining moment for Marvel? I thought Avi came off very badly and, tangentially, so did Marvel. Joe was only interviewed for a few seconds. Nothing he'd intended to convey was expressed by the piece. to the contrary...the piece clearly implied that the superhero comics Marvel put out are passe, and only good as subject fodder for films. How was this good for Marvel? Tough break, and an object lesson in never trusting the media not to find a negative spin on any subject matter no matter how benign. Interesting that simon made no effort to dispel the notion that Lee had created all the characters mentioned. Hulk, daredevil, etc. were all mentioned, and the inferance certainly seemed to be that Lee had created them all single handedly. Hopefully the next time Marvel or DC get press it's MUCH better than this story.

[Kurt Busiek]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>and that was kinda my point - to know who created Shrek, you need some kind of specialized knowledge (which I'd argue that you have, Kurt...), beyond what's reported. It wasn't "DreamWorks Presents: William Steig's Shrek," it was just "Shrek."</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah. I thought you were picking characters who were created "in the belly of the beast," as it were.

I'd argue that people not knowing the source material for movies is nothing new. If the book or play or article or whatever is famous enough, they know it, and if it's not, they don't. But that's not a development of our changing times; it's the way they've worked as far back as I can see.

[quote]<strong>Of course, if the creator makes his own name part of the property's title, then he kinda forces everyone to recognize him {cough, cough, KBAC, cough}.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, we're fixing that with the next releases, so they can go back to thinking Jim Lee owns it...

[quote]<strong>As far as popular icons go, like Shrek and Spider-Man, I would argue that the the view of the mainstream is that they were created by, and are the sole property of corporations, not individuals.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the general public doesn't worry about it -- but I'm not sure they didn't think the same way about the Lone Ranger and The Shadow. Heck, Paul Bunyan is thought to be folk myth, but was created by (as I recall) an advertising copywriter.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

[quote]Originally posted by Cliffy:
<strong>Ditko is persona non grata at Marvel? I just thought he left them, not the other way around.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ditko is not knocking at Marvel's door and being turned away.

Last I heard of any Ditko-Marvel contact, they'd spent years trying to get him to (a) do a new Spider-Man story, and (b) let them complete and publish the two Dr. Strange stories that he plotted and drew but never turned in in 1966, but he refused at the last moment.

kdb

[arthur pendragon]

Once more with feeling.

Persona non grata-somebody unacceptable as diplomat.

[Rob Staeger]

Well, just to argue this ridiculous point of semantics, dictionary.com has this to say about persona non grata:

n 1: a diplomat who is unacceptable to the government to which he is sent 2: a person who for some reason is not wanted or welcome

So, Marvel considers Ditko a persona non grata, in the strictest sense of the word, it would mean he'd be acting as a diplomat TO Marvel. If Marvel considers him unacceptable as their diplomat to somewhere else, that wouldn't make him a persona non grata -- only the country (or venue, such as 60 Minutes) which they intended to send him to would decide that.

But it sounds like Ditko's efforts *would* be welcomed at Marvel -- he just doesn't want to work with them.

Rob
(who finds the idea of Steve Ditko as a diplomat pretty silly, actually)

[arthur pendragon]

1. unwelcome or unacceptable person: somebody who is unwelcome or unacceptable.

Ditko would indeed be unacceptable to Marvel in the role that Stan Lee now occupies, wouldn't he? ;)

Hey, Steve Ditko, Marvel wants you back! They put your name as a co-creator on Amazing Spiderman for an issue the month that the movie was released, so what do you say we let bygones be bygones, and do some more work for Merry Marvel? They're really not so bad, just ask Stan. ;)

[czeskleba]

[quote]Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
<strong>
Stan has always played ball with Marvel and has been richly rewarded for that. Ditko didn't play ball and wasn't rewarded.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it's fair to say neither one has received an adequate share of the massive profits generated by Spider-Man over the years. But certainly, Stan has been better compensated than Ditko.

[czeskleba]

[quote]Originally posted by Academic:
<strong>For many people, Lee deserves credit as the man who created the CHARACTER of Spider-Man. Kirby, Ditko, Simon and Romita Sr. are the quartet who are far too unrecognized (at least in my opinion) as the men who created the IMAGE or VISUAL ICON of Spider-Man.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kirby, Simon, and Romita had nothing to do with the creation of the visual image of Spider-Man. That was all Ditko. And really, both Ditko and Romita made substantial contributions to the stories they drew, and thus deserve credit for creating/developing the Spider-Man character, just as much as Stan does.