STAN TO SUE MARVEL?

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Creators/stanlee.jpg" align="right" width="117" height="125" alt="Stan Lee">Marvel Comics might find itself on the opposite side of a courtroom with its own “father” - publisher Stan Lee - if the company doesn’t pay him 10% of company profits earned from movies and television shows - including ancillary rights - that use the company's characters.

According to the Form 10-Q filed Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Marvel Enterprises reports it has received a written claim from Lee "asserting the threat of litigation" against them if it doesn't pay him the 10% of profits, citing a provision in an employment agreement he signed with Marvel Enterprises on Nov. 1, 1998.

Marvel has indicated Lee’s claim is without merit, that it pays him an annual salary of $1 million dollars and that it intends to “vigorously defend such action”.

The SEC filing reads:

<blockquote>"Threatened Action. The Company has received a written claim by Stan Lee, Chairman Emeritus, asserting the threat of litigation, in the event the Company fails to pay him 10% of the profits derived by the Company from the profits of the movies and television programs (including ancillary rights) utilizing the Company's characters, as provided in the Employment Agreement between the Company and Mr. Lee dated as of November 1, 1998. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, the Company is currently paying Mr. Lee a salary of $1 million per year and believes that Mr. Lee's claim is without merit. If Mr. Lee commences suit, the Company intends to vigorously defend such action."</blockquote>

The full SEC filing can be read on the SEC website by clicking <a href=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933730/000093373002000013/0000933730-02-000013.txt target="_blank">HERE</a> or on Marvel.com [.pdf format] by clicking <a href=http://www.marvel.com/investors/archive/sept_2002_Q10.pdf>HERE</a>

The provision from Lee’s employment agreement being cited [under the Expenses/Fringe Benefits section] reads:

<blockquote>“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.”</blockquote>

Stan Lee’s full employment agreement can be read on the SEC's website by clicking <a href=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933730/000093373002000013/ex10-110q902.txt target="_blank">HERE</a>

Look for more information as it becomes available.

[Cloak & Dagger]

Sweet mother o' Ghandi, the shit's gonna HIT the fan now!

Ladies and Gentlemen...THIS IS THE END. This is the end...of dog racing!

[arthur pendragon]

I disagree. Dog racing will endure.

[LFKittsteiner]

How sad, yet, how ironic.

Lee should be getting a lot more money. On a concept he co-created, the highest-grossing movie of the year was made. Go get ´em, Stan.

LFKO.

[csGuy]

I'm really torn about this.

I have no idea who to "side" with on this one.
Stan's already making 1 million$(!!) a year and that is a lot more than most of us will ever see.

If anything, this is going to be interesting.

This is 60 Minutes' fault...

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by csGuy:
<strong>

This is 60 Minutes' fault...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't you think the 1998 contract Stan signed with Marvel has more to do with this than 60 Minutes?

[KACH]

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

Don't you think the 1998 contract Stan signed with Marvel has more to do with this than 60 Minutes?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Perhaps, but don't you find it ironic that no one had any idea Stan was upset about his share of profits until 60 Minutes which aired last week. And now suddenly this.

I'd say 60 Minutes definitely played a hand in this. Damn those television journalists . . .

--J.

[arthur pendragon]

If the contract didn't exist Stan wouldn't have a legal leg on which to stand. If Stan wins it won't mean the end of Marvel or a flood of lawsuits from others, so what's the big deal? Another illusion shattered? Welcome to the big leagues.

[jimmy_hotledz]

Hey,

anyone will admit they would want a cut of the profit on something they created.

that's a pretty cut and dry fact.

yeah he was once part of "the system" but that never negates the fact that his creations are the heart of MCE's revenue.

jimmy hotledz
aka Poppa Capz

[IanZL]

It does make one wonder. I mean did Stan ever consider that he was being screwed until whoever it was asked him point blank if he was being screwed? I guess Stan suddenly remembered what the contract said, or at least one of his people read back over it. I'm with Stan, Marvel needs to know a contract is a contract. I mean, its not like this will break them.

[Icewing_X]

Sigh.

Just...sigh.

That's all I can bring myself to do.


~Icewing, in a state of disbelief

[arthur pendragon]

Face front, true believers!

[jdkern]

How much is Steve Ditko getting? How 'bout Jack Kirby, when he was still alive?

Hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year.

Josh

[Brian Jacks]

Am I reading it wrong, or does it say 10% for ANY Marvel film/television show, regardless of whether or not Stan had a hand in its creation? So if Fox released a Sentry film, Stan should get 10 percent of Marvel's profit? Why would Marvel sign something like this? Any entertainment lawyers in the house? (no pun intended)

-Brian

[Jeffbot]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>The provision from Lee’s employment agreement being cited [under the Expenses/Fringe Benefits section] reads:

<blockquote>“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.”</blockquote></strong><hr></blockquote>

If this is true, then what's the problem? How can Marvel even argue with that?

[dollman]

I'm not sure why there is a feeling of disillusionmnent over this news. Haven't we all by now realized that $$$ makes the world go around? How many of you are sports fans and had to suffer the mercenary departures of your star athletes to say a New York or LA?

That's not to imply that Stan is mercenary, after all that 10% clause is built into his contract. And I suspect he paid little heed to the clause until recently. After all, being paid a million/annum was comfortable enough until he realized how much the Spidey movie was raking in from box office receipts and DVD sales.

The timing after the 60 minutes show is bad optics, but we shouldn't be pointing blame to anyone. All Stan is asking for, is what was promised to him contractually.

[Jor-EL]

Bah! Another hoax from Marvel!

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
<strong>Am I reading it wrong, or does it say 10% for ANY Marvel film/television show, regardless of whether or not Stan had a hand in its creation? So if Fox released a Sentry film, Stan should get 10 percent of Marvel's profit? Why would Marvel sign something like this? Any entertainment lawyers in the house? (no pun intended)

-Brian</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't Stan create Sentry, too? ;)

Seriously, this contract was signed before Marvel became Hollywood's darling so maybe they never thought it would amount to anything.

[pmpknface]

Damn... this industry takes 1 step forwand and 2 steps back.

This blows hockey-puck size chunks.

It's sad when this comic book news site had to cover as many court cases as it does creator changes and press releases. :(

[Tom Daylight]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong><img src="http://classic.newsarama.com/Creators/stanlee.jpg" align="right" width="117" height="125" alt="Stan Lee"></strong><hr></blockquote>

AND HE LOOKS SO NICE.

Meh. If Marvel was paying me $1m a year, I wouldn't care about that 10% of licensing profits. Seems a bit high to me anyway.

[kneel-B4-Zod]

"He can't be the Incredible Hulk! I am! Change, damn it!"

Stan Lee on Simpsons = funny.

[JimHughs4]

Wasn't Stan formerly in charge of getting Marvel "stuff" into film & television? isn't that why he moved to the West coast? I swear I remember something about that...

[Wade @ Sighnub.com]

This whole thing makes me really, really sad. I wish that they could work this out without going to court. By the time it actually goes to trial Stan could be long gone, and so could Marvel.

Reading the contract, I do actually see where Marvel could argue against it. It is all in the wording, folks. Basically he gets 10% of anything considered pure profit not counting licensing and possibly other fees. Hell, all they would have to do is relabel some deposit records as licensing and bada-bing, they get off scott-free.

[kneel-B4-Zod]

Fetsur,

Are you saying that, because you had a contract for $1mil a year, you would turn down $70-$80 million contractually due to you and paid out over the remainder of your life? Money that was earned partly because of your skill and hard work; money that would support your grandchildren's children?

Like hell you would.

[Kevin T. Brown]

By the way, the 60 Minutes interviews were done weeks, if not months, ago. So this wasn't something that just came up. I would be willing to assume Stan was trying to work something out that was equitable since he was interviewed and Marvel balked at it, hence the lawsuit. Of course, I am guessing on that, but that would make the most sense considering what is happening now.

But one thing doesn't make any sense is the timing. According to the passage that was shown in the article concerning the Expenses/Fringe Benefits section of the contract, Marvel doesn't have to pay until March 31st of any year. (Unless I'm misinterpreting it.) Does that mean they didn't pay this past March 31st and perhaps that's why Stan's suing?

[Shakespeare]

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
<strong>Am I reading it wrong, or does it say 10% for ANY Marvel film/television show, regardless of whether or not Stan had a hand in its creation?
-Brian</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a good question because what is to say that Stan should get a chunk of the Blade movies or the MIB films, he didn't create any of that. Don't get me wrong I believe that Stan should get a fair share of the Marvel profits, but that's what he gets for putting Marvel on the Stock Market. Corporate lawyers will find a way to keep this trial going until it will no longer be an issue.

[Leocast]

[quote]Originally posted by Fetsur:
Meh. If Marvel was paying me $1m a year, I wouldn't care about that 10% of licensing profits. Seems a bit high to me anyway.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Ok, let's see.

"Spider-Man" grossed like what, $400M? That's already $40M, which at his current rate, would earn in 40 years.

And don't forget X-Men, Hulk, Daredevil...

and we haven't even talked about the Spider-Man sequels!!

That's a LOTTA dough.

Leo

[Tom Daylight]

[quote]Originally posted by kneel-B4-Zod:
<strong>Are you saying that, because you had a contract for $1mil a year, you would turn down $70-$80 million contractually due to you and paid out over the remainder of your life? Money that was earned partly because of your skill and hard work; money that would support your grandchildren's children?

Like hell you would.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where would the money come from? I wouldn't be interested in putting a company like that back in the red. People would lose their jobs. I'd rather leave the money in good hands than just take it and sit on it.

And if I were to ever have great-grandchildren, I think $1m a year for the rest of my life should be enough for them as well.

[Tom Daylight]

[quote]Originally posted by Leocast:
<strong>

Ok, let's see.

"Spider-Man" grossed like what, $400M? That's already $40M, which at his current rate, would earn in 40 years.

And don't forget X-Men, Hulk, Daredevil...

and we haven't even talked about the Spider-Man sequels!!

That's a LOTTA dough.

Leo</strong><hr></blockquote>

10% of MARVEL'S profits, Leo. That'd be about $4m.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Wade @ Sighnub.com:
<strong>This whole thing makes me really, really sad. I wish that they could work this out without going to court. By the time it actually goes to trial Stan could be long gone, and so could Marvel.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bill Jemas on this matter, quoting Jim Carrey as The Riddler from Batman Forever, "I'm COUNTING on it!" ;)

Seriously, if Marvel pays Stan it won't be the end of them by a long shot.

[John Osen]

[quote]Originally posted by jdkern:
<strong>How much is Steve Ditko getting? How 'bout Jack Kirby, when he was still alive?

Hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year.

Josh</strong><hr></blockquote>

Although legally Stan is right (I'm an employment contract attorney), I'm with my brother Josh on this one. What comes around, goes around. Karma.
:D

[Reloaded]

If Stan's contract isn't being kept, Marvel should lose. However much money Stan's been getting as opposed to Ditko, etc has nothing to do with the suit. If Marvel has broken an agreement, they should be held accountable.

Stan Lee and anyone else who ever signed a work-for-hire agreement, despite however much you cherish their work, aren't entitled to anything other than what the agreement says is owed. If Marvel or DC would like to reward these original creators, I applaud them, but I stand by their legal right to not have to.

If Stan is getting screwed contractually by Marvel, I'll stand with the Man, but if he's just after Spiderman money, I'll stand with Marvel.

[hiphophead]

With great power comes great responsibility

With that said with a great contract comes great reward. I don't know if anyone mentioned the success of X-Men, Blade (somewhat) and the Hulk will be the bomb. He gets 10% on those as well. DVD has revolutionized the industry, since a company can recoup lost revenue on their release or add to it (Spider-Man, X-Men).

[John Osen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reloaded:
[QB]If Stan's contract isn't being kept, Marvel should lose. However much money Stan's been getting as opposed to Ditko, etc has nothing to do with the suit. If Marvel has broken an agreement, they should be held accountable.

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. STAN SCREWED KIRBY AND DITKO OUT OF MILLIONS OF $ FOR THEIR CO-CREATIONS AND NOW HE'S WHINING ABOUT MARVEL DOING THE SAME TO HIM! DUH!


:mad:

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by IanZL:
<strong>It does make one wonder. I mean did Stan ever consider that he was being screwed until whoever it was asked him point blank if he was being screwed?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely -- this type of letter wouldn't normally be sent until the attorneys had vetted the claim, which would take longer than the presumably short period since the 60 Minutes story was taped. I think more likely it was the huge dough that the Spider-Man film took in that catalyzed Lee and his legal counsel to look into his compensation.

--Cliffy

[fournwah]

It's already been pointed out elsewhere (I think in their Qtrly earning reports) that Marvel received approx. $2 Mil from the movie profits, and is anticipating another $2 Mil from DVD sales and other misc. merchandise. This would make Stan's 10% equal about 400K. Regardless of what he's being paid, the fact of the matter is, he has a valid contract. As much of a fan as I am of Marvel, they should have been paying this money. I think it was stupid of them to put it in there. This seems to me like something they will settle out of court.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by fournwah:
<strong>As much of a fan as I am of Marvel, they should have been paying this money. I think it was stupid of them to put it in there. This seems to me like something they will settle out of court.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Brian Hibbs, anyone? ;)

[hiphophead]

When I was young I use to read comics and every now and then come across a word or two that I did not know.

Thank you Stan Lee.

an-cil-lary: subordinate

e-mer-i-tus: retired but retaining an honary title corresponding to that held immediately before retirement

Hey, I didn't know

[KingStalin]

F#$% Marvel. This is just like them breaking their own contract with returnable books. It's in stan's contract he gets 10%. He deserves it. Would marvel even be the number one comic company if stan hadn't created these guys and worked so hard to promote them all through his years. Stan is right here and you can't deny it. Give'em Hell Stan!

'nuff said!

[stephen snyder]

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. STAN SCREWED KIRBY AND DITKO OUT OF MILLIONS OF $ FOR THEIR CO-CREATIONS AND NOW HE'S WHINING ABOUT MARVEL DOING THE SAME TO HIM! DUH!


:mad: [/QB][/QUOTE]

What part don't you get that was a work for hire with them. Not anybodys fault but the people in question. Stan has a contract it was broken end of case. Go ahead and blame him for the fact he had the brains to have a contract unlike the others.

[KingStalin]

Originally posted by stephen snyder:
<strong>YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. STAN SCREWED KIRBY AND DITKO OUT OF MILLIONS OF $ FOR THEIR CO-CREATIONS AND NOW HE'S WHINING ABOUT MARVEL DOING THE SAME TO HIM! DUH!


:mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

What part don't you get that was a work for hire with them. Not anybodys fault but the people in question. Stan has a contract it was broken end of case. Go ahead and blame him for the fact he had the brains to have a contract unlike the others.[/QB]

exactly. I bet ditko wishes he had a contract like lee did.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by KingStalin:
<strong>

exactly. I bet ditko wishes he had a contract like lee did.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I guess Ditko and Kirby weren't as adroit at sucking corporate c*ck, as was Stan.
;)
Stan was also smart enough not to stand up for Kirby when he sought return of his artwork. *sigh* My hero.

[Reaper]

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

I guess Ditko and Kirby weren't as adroit at sucking corporate c*ck, as was Stan. </strong><hr></blockquote>

How old are you, 12? You ever hear of something called business savvy? Stan’s entitled to what he negotiated and contracted for. Vice-versa, other creators, no matter how great the are or were, are not entitled to what the did not negotiate or contract for. End of story.

[El Toro Rojo]

Maybe now he'll finally be able to afford a decent toupee. :eek:

[Nic]

This smells like another MarvelTM Marketing ploy for the release of a new title.. I can see it now: Ultimate Stan.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by El Toro Rojo:
<strong>Maybe now he'll finally be able to afford a decent toupee. :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Unless Marvel pulls the rug right out from under him. ;)

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Nic:
<strong>This smells like another MarvelTM Marketing ploy for the release of a new title.. I can see it now: Ultimate Stan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just imagine... ;)

[MrSinister]

Maybe Stan saw "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" and decided he wanted his "motherF-ing movie check". Hey, the guy co-created some of comics' greatest characters. If Marvel signed the contract they should honor it. After all from what I remember, those nitwits had Stan sign the contract so they could save the money they were paying him at the time (back when Marvel was losing money like Adelphia and Enron). They probably figured that given their past "successes" like "Punisher" and "FF", Stan was getting 10% of nothing.
As for Kirby and Ditko, it's a shame Ditko has been a recluse but that is his choice. As for Kirby, I don't buy his claim that he created all the Marvel heroes. Lee had a synergy with Kirby and Ditko that was amazing. They fed off each other's creativity and were better working together than when they worked apart.

[Danny Donovan]

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
<strong>Am I reading it wrong, or does it say 10% for ANY Marvel film/television show, regardless of whether or not Stan had a hand in its creation? So if Fox released a Sentry film, Stan should get 10 percent of Marvel's profit? Why would Marvel sign something like this? Any entertainment lawyers in the house? (no pun intended)

-Brian</strong><hr></blockquote>


Before Stan left New York and the Day to day opperations of Marvel that he had been a part of since the early sixties, as editor, EIC, publisherm etc. He was given the title of Chairman Emeritus, which was just a title that was sort of like a retirement package without having to officially retire. He got a stipidend from Marvel without being a part of their publishing plans..

When he went out West he became a partner in Marvel Films. (now Marvel Studios/Toybiz Spectra-Star)With that he had a small ammount of input on the various cartoons and films they were working on and was basically used as a mascot. Dragging "the father of Marvel Comics" out to the media to smile and say how excited he is to be a part of it and how wonderful it'll turn out and sell the movies the way he did the comics.

Essentially with this plan he sees a percentage of profits from ANY film made by Marvel Studios. Whether it's Prime, Namor, or Sleepwalker. They give him an Executive Producer credit and he waits for the next media blitz to pop back up and gather buzz for the projects.

Way to go Stan!
Excelsior!

[QCCBob]

:D
Maybe they should hire someone to run the company that can read a contract and abide by the terms therein.... More proof that Mr. J got his "Harvard Law Degree" out of a Cracker Jack box!

How many Marvel Chief Operating Officers does it take to read a contract? HA! They screwed us retailers earning a lawsuit and now get a new potential lawsuit from Stan himself... How many more millions of dollars lost in legal battles will it take before Marvel's Board of Directors and stockholders catch on??? Accountability has to kick in eventually and I hope that day comes before Mr. J can cause/allow anymore damage to the future of Marvel Comics and this industry.

Best of all, the man who practically invented the hype machine ends up on the opposite side of Jemas and Co.... Spin this into a plus for Marvel, guys! Poor old Stan Lee, without whom there wouldn't even be a Marvel Comics, having to sue to get his rightful due. It's a PR nightmare! :D

[Cadecus]

Sue the bastards, Stan.

But not for money, for characters.

It's time to take 'em back from these guys who think that the creators are more important.

[danzo]

[quote]Originally posted by BLUES BROTHER:
YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. STAN SCREWED KIRBY AND DITKO OUT OF MILLIONS OF $ FOR THEIR CO-CREATIONS AND NOW HE'S WHINING ABOUT MARVEL DOING THE SAME TO HIM! DUH!
:mad: <hr></blockquote>no, blues bro- YOU just don't get it, this is about Stan's 1998 contract and has absolutely nothing to do with who created what....
but it would be nice if everyone would stop screwing everyone else.... sigh, what's wrong with a little integrity? kinda funny that there's so little in a business built on heroic ideals...

[danzo]

HEY! i'm no longer a junior member! cool!
oh, yeah- about the Stan-thing, the earlier post expressing that Marvel probally thought that the contract wouldn't amount to anything is probally dead right.

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by jdkern:
<strong>How much is Steve Ditko getting? How 'bout Jack Kirby, when he was still alive?

Hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year.

Josh</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, they should have reaped more rewards for their efforts.

That doesn't mean that Stan shouldn't get what was agreed to. Regardless of how much Marvel is paying him a year, if the contract said he gets something else he should get something else.

--Scott

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
<strong>Am I reading it wrong, or does it say 10% for ANY Marvel film/television show, regardless of whether or not Stan had a hand in its creation? So if Fox released a Sentry film, Stan should get 10 percent of Marvel's profit? Why would Marvel sign something like this? Any entertainment lawyers in the house? (no pun intended)

-Brian</strong><hr></blockquote>

Keep in mind that Stan can produce published "news" stories where the Marvel Editor in Chief said that Stan did create the Sentry.
;)

It would be very very sad and very very funny if that cutesy marketing ploy wound up costing marvel some money down the line.

--Scott

[shadowraven]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kneel-B4-Zod:
[qb]Fetsur,


So basically he's suing for two, at the very most three, million dollars as the marvel profits from other recent movies are nearly negligable.

I'm not sure about this suit. I think Stan has more at stake from losing than he does benifits from winning the suit.

He's over 80 years old. By the time this case goes through he might not even be alive. It doesn't strike me as a very honourable thing to do from somebody in his position. He might of created a good number of characters, but there have been hundreds of others that have contibuted to the fact that these characters have remained so popular for 40 years.... let alone still exist.


On a side note, why must people continue to talk as id Marvel is teetering on total bankruptsy? Their cash on hand over doubled since the same time last year, and their third quarter was much stronger than the second quarter.

Its funny how much talk there is of Marvel going belly up soon, while practically no one mentions the same thing happening to DC, Image, Darkhorse, Crossgen, or many of the others.

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by Shakespeare:
<strong>

This is a good question because what is to say that Stan should get a chunk of the Blade movies or the MIB films, he didn't create any of that. Don't get me wrong I believe that Stan should get a fair share of the Marvel profits, but that's what he gets for putting Marvel on the Stock Market. Corporate lawyers will find a way to keep this trial going until it will no longer be an issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just to clarify, Stan has never owned Marvel, and probably had little to do with the decision to take the company public. That was Ron Perelman who did that and it eventually led to the Marvel bankruptcy.

Also, the part of his contract I read did not say that he had to have created the characters to get the profit participation. I didn't read the whole contract, but I would be surprised if his co-creation of various characters was specifically mentioned.

--Scott

--Scott

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by shadowraven:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by kneel-B4-Zod:
[qb]Fetsur,


So basically he's suing for two, at the very most three, million dollars as the marvel profits from other recent movies are nearly negligable.

I'm not sure about this suit. I think Stan has more at stake from losing than he does benifits from winning the suit.

He's over 80 years old. By the time this case goes through he might not even be alive. It doesn't strike me as a very honourable thing to do from somebody in his position. He might of created a good number of characters, but there have been hundreds of others that have contibuted to the fact that these characters have remained so popular for 40 years.... let alone still exist.


On a side note, why must people continue to talk as id Marvel is teetering on total bankruptsy? Their cash on hand over doubled since the same time last year, and their third quarter was much stronger than the second quarter.

Its funny how much talk there is of Marvel going belly up soon, while practically no one mentions the same thing happening to DC, Image, Darkhorse, Crossgen, or many of the others.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not honorable to ask someone else to keep to the terms of a contract? I don't see how honor comes into it, other than, IF Marvel is indeed not keeping the terms of the contract, then they could not be described as honorable.


Good point about the bankruptcy. Now that you pointed it out, I realize that I tend to still think of it that way. Does anyone have some solid info (and translation) on how they are doing with regards to dept, earnings, etc. As for the other companies, I think it's because most of them are private (Image, Dark Horse, and Crossgen)so there is not much public info. DC, as part of a very large corporation, I think can't actually go bankrupt in the legal sense. I think the whole AOL Time Warner structure would have to go. I'm not sure about that, though.

--Scott

[stephen snyder]

Here is a response from someody on pulse site
-------------------------------------------------
WHAT? Marvel failing to abide by the terms of a legally binding contract???
With great greed comes great irresponsibility!!!!

How long until the legal bills demand a housecleaning starting at the top? Soon, I hope, and. when it does, I hope Mr. J's buy out contract is handled as well and as acurately as the contracts under his current watch!!!
--------------------------------------------------

This one had me auctually laughing out load when I read it. On a side not captain america the truth doesnt even come out for roughly 2 weeks and they are already offering mighty marvel must have. HOW ****ING HARD WOULD IT BE JUST TO PRINT SOME EXTRAS

[shadowraven]

[quote]Originally posted by Slangword:
<strong>

It's not honorable to ask someone else to keep to the terms of a contract? I don't see how honor comes into it, other than, IF Marvel is indeed not keeping the terms of the contract, then they could not be described as honorable.


Good point about the bankruptcy. Now that you pointed it out, I realize that I tend to still think of it that way. Does anyone have some solid info (and translation) on how they are doing with regards to dept, earnings, etc. As for the other companies, I think it's because most of them are private (Image, Dark Horse, and Crossgen)so there is not much public info. DC, as part of a very large corporation, I think can't actually go bankrupt in the legal sense. I think the whole AOL Time Warner structure would have to go. I'm not sure about that, though.

--Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>


If Stan's contract clearly states that he will be given 10% of Marvel's take then that's one thing. That would be the same as the return policy on late materials that Marvel didn't live up to. Often though, these disputes are rarely that clear.

I would like to know if 10% is a number stated in his contract, or a number that Stan feels is due to him. If this lawsuit is in hope of exploiting a more ambiguous loophole in his 1998 contract than that is not the most honourable thing he could be doing. That is what I meant by my statement.

As has been mentioned before, while Stan did create the concepts for many of Marvel's hottest properties, their success is not his alone. The X-men for example wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for other creators that picked up the ball.

I can almost guarentee no other creator see close to a million a year from Marvel. Especially not these days.


As for the actual earnings/loses numbers, they are up on Newsarama. look on the right sidebar

[Cliffy]

[quote]Originally posted by shadowraven:
<strong>I would like to know if 10% is a number stated in his contract, or a number that Stan feels is due to him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then perhaps you should read the article heading this post, which quotes the contract as follows: "In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by... productions utilizing Marvel characters. ;)

--Cliffy

[KingStalin]

[quote]Originally posted by Cadecus:
<strong>Sue the bastards, Stan.

But not for money, for characters.

It's time to take 'em back from these guys who think that the creators are more important.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How interesting a verdict that would be to see Lee control his characters. But I beleive stan enjoys what the current teams are mostly doing and only wants what was guranteed for hiom form marvel. he knows he doesn't own these characters we just wants what he deserves.

hmmm you think we have seen the last days of all marvle books openning with Stan Lee presents?

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by KingStalin:
<strong>

hmmm you think we have seen the last days of all marvle books openning with Stan Lee presents?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The "Bill Jemas Presents" era has arrived! ;)

[Captain Jim]

On the one hand, $1 million/year isn't bad money.

On the other hand, if the contract says he should get 10%, then he should get 10%. What is it with Marvel and their thinking they can just ignore legal contracts?

As one who was around for the creation of the Marvel universe in the early sixties, I have great respect and admiration for men like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. But let's get real, deciding what a character will look like visually (while important) is nothing close to creating the whole character concept. And that's exactly what Stan did, for virutally *all* of the Marvel icons. As a matter of fact, there are very few characters who've been created over the last forty years who have the enduring power of Stan's creations. All these years later, who are the characters Hollywood is interested in? Spider-Man, Daredevil, Hulk, X-Men--all Stan Lee creations. In fact, it's probably not too much to say that without Stan Lee, there probably wouldn't be a Marvel universe today.

But in a way, that's all beside the point. You make a legal agreement, you abide by it. Period.

[Hdefined]

Maybe they'll do with all Marvel property like they did with Deadpool, Cable, and X-Force so they could stop paying Rob Liefeld.

Let's see . . .

Arachnid-X, X-vengers, Silver X Guy, Fantastix 4 . .

[Sean Walsh]

[quote]Originally posted by KACH:
<strong>I'd say 60 Minutes definitely played a hand in this. Damn those television journalists . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes! Damn them and their uncanny ability to reveal the truth!

Sean
:p

[Sean Walsh]

[quote]Originally posted by Hdefined:
<strong>Arachnid-X, X-vengers, Silver X Guy, Fantastix 4 . .</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Incredible HulX, X-devil, The Mighty X-Gardian, Captain AmeriXa....

[madcougar]

I'm a looong time lurker, and I just had to chime in on this.

I'm amazed at how blind you Marvel Zombies are! The company signed a legal contract with Lee, and now they don't want to honor it, and you find dozens of stupid reasons why Lee is the bad guy on this one. Dumb.

It must be like watching your parents fight, huh? You love them both, but deep, deep down you love one of them more than the other. Sad.

This isn't going to put Marvel out of business, but it is going to cost them a pretty penny when you take into account that this isn't just Spider-Man, but also Blade II, Daredevil, and Hulk.

[Taylor Porter]

[quote]Originally posted by Captain Jim:
<strong>But let's get real, deciding what a character will look like visually (while important) is nothing close to creating the whole character concept. And that's exactly what Stan did, for virutally *all* of the Marvel icons.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't want to be a jerk about this, but I'm pretty sure that the artists did more than just design the visuals for the characters. I remember reading interviews where Stan would credit Jack and Steve for things like powers, environments, even minor characters. For example, Stan thought that Galactus should have a herald, but didn't even plan on giving him any lines. But after Jack drew the Slver Surfer, Stan made him not only a crucial character to the storyline, but ended up giving him his own title. You make it sound like Stan was reponsible for 90% of all of these characters, and in some cases that may be true, but in others it seems like his involvement would be less than 50%.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be overly picky. I just hope that the artists get the credit they deserve. You obviously like these artists, and I know you weren't trying to disrespect them or anything. I'm just trying to set the record (as I understand it) straight.

[Michael C Lorah]

[quote]How much is Steve Ditko getting? How 'bout Jack Kirby, when he was still alive?

Hell of a lot less than $1 mil a year.<hr></blockquote>

That may be true, but they never signed the contact Stan signed.
Also, because one creator was treated terribly and one creator only slightly wronged doesn't make it any less a wrong.

Regardless of Jack and Steve's contributions, Stan also created/co-created most of Marvel's characters and certainly deserves his share of any profits made on them. Ditko should also be sucking up the millions from this Spider-Man movie and it sucks that he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but that doesn't make Stan's claim any less valid.

[DarthRandall]

Here's a few things -

1- As evidenced by several of his latest projects, as well as reading the original works, Stan couldn't write himself out of a job application.
2- However, he is credited with creating characters other creators have been able to make into viable properties for things outside of comics.
3- The contract does state he is due 10% of this stuff.
4- Anyone else read the Bill Finger article in the latest Wizard?

Switch Marvel with Microsoft and Lee with Bill Gates and you see the problem. Sure, he may not have started the company, but he did build it from the ground up.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by KACH:
<strong>

I'd say 60 Minutes definitely played a hand in this. Damn those television journalists . . .

--J.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree. I think Stan was emboldened by his stunning critical success on the DC Just Imagine books. ;)

[arthur pendragon]

Do you think Quesada will release a statement like he did when the Brian Hibbs lawsuit was announced the weekend the Spider-Man movie was released? "Way to rain on everyone's parade, Stan!" ;)

[blind3rdeye]

Get 'em Stan.
The man co-created some of the greatest comic characters in the world. Icons. The man SHOULD be getting something from the movies and merchandising. Hell, if I created what he did I'd damn well get it. :mad:

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by blind3rdeye:
<strong>Get 'em Stan.
The man co-created some of the greatest comic characters in the world. Icons. The man SHOULD be getting something from the movies and merchandising. Hell, if I created what he did I'd damn well get it. :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I never thought I'd see the day when Steve Ditko posted here. It's a pleasure, sir. ;)

[Rainman]

Hey, these are the Man's creations! I'm not a big fan of Marvel characters, but I do respect them, as well as the fact that it took a Man with amazing creativity to come up with the heroes that everyone else have come to love. The Man is due much more than a million dollars for creating these characters. He deserves a lot more. My allegiance follows the creator.
I wonder if this whole situation may bring about low morale for the hired talent on the Marvel titles. Maybe there's more to the matter than I am privy of knowing. This is all my humble opinion. :(

[J Wyatt]

[quote]Originally posted by csGuy:
<strong>I'm really torn about this.

I have no idea who to "side" with on this one.
Stan's already making 1 million$(!!) a year and that is a lot more than most of us will ever see.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just as with pro athletes, the dollar amount they already receive should be irrelevant. If ballplayers didn't get the millions they do, if would just stay in the pocket of the owners.

If Marvel has promised Stan something and not delivered, they are in the wrong.

[arthur pendragon]

Marvel may yet prevail in this matter when it comes to the dicey definition of "profits." Stan might well spend a good portion of his million dollar salary to find out he's due nothing.

Who says this isn't the Marvel Age of creative accounting? ;)

[pah25]

If you go by what Stan Lee was saying during all the Spiderman movie stuff - he created Wolverine & the X-men from 1975 onwards. But he hasn't done any X-men stories since around 1967. All he's done are the SM paper strips, Sm movie comic, Ravage (which was concelled). all this time Stan's been getting paid from Marvel - while not doing anything, apart from working for DC. If Stan should get money from;
Fan 4, SM, Hulk, Avengers, X-men. (that's all his co-creations). Then Chris should be getting money for the New X-men from 75+. And what about Scott, with all his new charaters from the '90's?

[Deejay]

What is this shit? If Stan is entitled to 10% then he's entitled to 10% even if he is making a million bucks a year (which given his contribution to Marvel is well deserved). HowEVER, what I would like to see is Stan spread the dough around a bit to other people who contributed significantly to the Spiderman mythos, most noteably Steve Ditko and to a lesser degree John Romita Sr. A nice donation to the CBLDF and ACTOR would also be an appropriate gesture. Stan, with big bucks, comes biiiig responsibility.

[Antisocial]

Let's not make Stan Lee a poster boy for creator's rights. Let's face it:

1) Stan as editor-in-chief at Timely/Marvel for decades knew better than anybody about the benefits and pitfalls of the work-for-hire situation. If he believed so strongly in his creations, he should've published them himself. In fact, Stan did publish some humor books himself back in the 60's. He didn't think enough of his characters to take the plunge himself, so Marvel assumed all the financial risks and the benefits that go along with that. It's no different than a lawyer who works for a firm. If he wins or loses, the firm takes the loss or profit. The lawyer gets paid a salary. That same lawyer could have started his own practice and made more money, but would've had to accept the risks too.

2) As Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Marvel, Stan used work-for-hire on tons of creators, so it would be very hypocritical to turn around now. Ask Marv Wolfman. Ask Steve Gerber.

3) Stan was well compensated, unlike many of his fellow creators. He even admits in his autobiography that he made a very good living while writing for and running Marvel. And he was given a cush job for 15 years too! He was supposed to be out in L.A. helping Marvel get into movies and films, but the best that we ever saw was the Captain America and Punisher movies. He was paid a fortune and accomplished next to nothing. Avi Arad got the same gig and has turned Marvel into a player in Hollywood.

[Barry]

Go Stan, go Stan, getcher money...

[Michael C Lorah]

[quote]Thank you very much, Arthur. I was starting to feel like a minority of one and wondering where were all the long time comic fans who are familiar with Stan's questionable treatment of Kirby and Ditko. I think a lot of people posting here are unfamiliar with the last 40+ years of Marvel corporate history. Thanks again for not making me feel like an army of one.<hr></blockquote>

i know exactly how Stan treated them. It was wrong and horrible.
but it's also irrelevent.
Creator's Rights belong to every creator, even the ones who've done terrible things. You can't pick and choose which creators deserve compensation for their creations.

And as far as I'm aware, creators who have added to the legacy of these characters do stand to make some very nice royalty checks off of their contributions. I recall meeting Chuck Dixon at a con where he mentioned that he recieved a royalty check because there was a reference to the Redbird (Robin's vehicle) in the movie Batman And Robin.

If a throwaway line merits a check, then Stan (and Steve) certainly deserve very large checks for all that they contributed to the Spider-Man movie.

[Grendel Prime]

It's not Stan Lee's morality that is on trial here. He has a contract for 10%, so he should get 10%.

But it would be nice to see him use this extra income in some positive way for the legacy of all of comics (ACTOR, CBLDF, etc).

Excelsior!

[Clem Snide]

One has to wonder just what Stan does in order to earn this $1 million per annum.Ostensibly, not much.

Secondly, there were William S. Burroughs' remarks on the Devil's Bargain:

"Unlimited wealth; but not much to spend it on, eh, Gramps."

It seems incredible that he would be tenaciously pursuing MORE money at his time of life.

[brett]

It's really very simple.

Whether Stan Lee makes 1 Million per year from Marvel or 5 Million, Marvel signed a contract with the man to share in the profits.

It seems to me, now they want to reneg.

Which is absolutely ridiculous considering Spiderman just made almost 800 million dollars from dvd sales and box office receipts, not including merchandising.

And if it wasn't for Stan Lee and others, they wouldn't have had a product to make all that money to begin with. God, is it so much trouble to share the wealth? The greed these companies display is completely astounding.

[MurrayC]

Well, well, well..... Stan Lee getting screwed by the very company he helped create? I guess now he knows what it's like to be in Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko's shoes.

[Scout99]

[quote]Originally posted by brett:
<strong>It's really very simple.

Whether Stan Lee makes 1 Million per year from Marvel or 5 Million, Marvel signed a contract with the man to share in the profits.

It seems to me, now they want to reneg.

Which is absolutely ridiculous considering Spiderman just made almost 800 million dollars from dvd sales and box office receipts, not including merchandising.

And if it wasn't for Stan Lee and others, they wouldn't have had a product to make all that money to begin with. God, is it so much trouble to share the wealth? The greed these companies display is completely astounding.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, just because a comic book-based film does well, it doesn't necessary translate well into bigger sales for comic books.

Anyway, let's hope there's a compromise between two parties.

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Grendel Prime:
<strong>

But it would be nice to see him use this extra income in some positive way for the legacy of all of comics (ACTOR, CBLDF, etc).

Excelsior!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now that's funny!

http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/media/02stansrolls.jpg

[arthur pendragon]

[quote]Originally posted by Michael C Lorah:
<strong>

If a throwaway line merits a check, then Stan (and Steve) certainly deserve very large checks for all that they contributed to the Spider-Man movie.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bill Jemas said that Ditko's check is in the mail. They sent it in a No-Prize envelope. ;)

[pmpknface]

So Stan owns the Femizons, huh? Wonder when we're gonna get then next Femizons story? HA!

[AnthonyL]

For all those who keep on bringing up Stan's past with Ditko and the Kirby's..it doesnt matter. You're "argument" has no merit in this conversation, so give it up.

This has to do with a contract a few years ago that has not been lived up to. End of story.

I dont think Stan needs the money. hell, i'd love to be making a million a year guaranteed.

BUT, the law is the law, a word is a bond, and Marvel needs to pay up their end of the deal. Case closed.

Anthony L

[TTOMLINS99]

Looking at the contract it looks like Stan deserves 10% cut on the Spider-man movie but you know lawyers then can take something that makes perfect sense and make it absoulutly confusing.
As for the Kirby,Ditko contraversy I don't remember reading Stan saying anything negative about them he just kept his mouth shut while marvel screwed them.
But I will say 60 minutes got this going.Stan was probably willing to be a company man and keep this quiet until the whole country found out about it.

[TJMD]

If they promised him his money, then they owe it to him. He and Kirby laid the foundation for Marvel. If Marvel and Lee did have a contract that said 10%, then they need to pay up. No matter if they pay him a mill every year. I'd like to see those of you who say "He already gets a mill a year, so he should just forget about it!" You'd be singing a different tune if it happened to you, and don't deny it it, because untill it happens to you you can say "anything" but when it happens you'll change up faster than Superman could change back to Clark Kent.

[John Osen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AnthonyL:
[QB]For all those who keep on bringing up Stan's past with Ditko and the Kirby's..it doesnt matter. You're "argument" has no merit in this conversation, so give it up.

With thinking like this, no wonder you lost the war. This is an open forum and people have the right to discuss their opinions whether you agree with them or not.
:p

[pickard]

If Stan has a contract saying he's owed 10%, then he should be paid it.

This has nothing to do with Kirby or Ditko. If you want to use this discussion to blast Lee for not being honorable in his dealings with them, no one can stop you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Don't you think that, if Ditko had a similar compensation arrangement with Marvel, they'd be screwing him over too? Or would that be different? In that case, you'd think Marvel should abide by their word. So, Marvel should only be required to honor their contractual obligations with people you deem to be of good character. Right?

[John Osen]

[quote]Originally posted by pickard:
<strong>
Don't you think that, if Ditko had a similar compensation arrangement with Marvel, they'd be screwing him over too? Or would that be different? In that case, you'd think Marvel should abide by their word. So, Marvel should only be required to honor their contractual obligations with people you deem to be of good character. Right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wrong. Yes, Marvel would screw Ditko also and that wouldn't be different. I think everyone should always abide by their word. This has nothing to do with my opinion of Lee's character. He screwed over Kirby & Ditko, and now is whining, because the same thing is happening to him. If you and all the other 10% contract whiners can't see the hypocrisy of that, I give up. Whatever happened to the intellectual posters like Elayne Riggs? Sigh...
:p

[ZOD]

Who the hell gives a damn about what happened with Ditko and Kirby? Stan made better decisions in his life than Steve and Jack and earned his cash. The funniest thing is some ****s act like they were there and know all the facts of what happened with Ditko and Kirby when in reality they don't know shit. Anyway, the Kirby/Ditko thing doesn't even play into this. This is about the corporate bigwigs of Marvel signing a contract with Stan and now not holding up there end of the bargain. Stan should sue the bastards and get the money the contract he signed said he should.

ZOD

[Taylor Porter]

[quote]Originally posted by BLUES BROTHER:
<strong>
He screwed over Kirby & Ditko, and now is whining, because the same thing is happening to him. If you and all the other 10% contract whiners can't see the hypocrisy of that, I give up.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, I'll admit that Stan's actions have been a little questionable. I don't think that this side of the Marvel story should be ignored or forgotten. I think we should keep in mind how differently Stan was and is treated from the artists he worked with.

But I still don't see how this relates to this case. Because it's hypocritical, should he forget about his case? Of course not. He has a contract with Marvel, and they should honor it.

Stan's past may be a relevant and interesting topic, but it has no bearing on this issue. So, yeah, Stan's "hypocrisy" may be worth talking about, but it doesn't mean he doesn't deserve what Marvel has promised him. Maybe Stan should have acted differently in the past, and there's probably more he could do in the future, but he still should get what his contract dictates.

[pickard]

[quote]Originally posted by BLUES BROTHER:
<strong>If you and all the other 10% contract whiners can't see the hypocrisy of that, I give up. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Lee's lawsuit threat would be hypocrisy if he had a contract with Ditko and then failed to live up to his obligations as spelled out in the contract.

[quote]Originally posted by BLUES BROTHER:
<strong>Whatever happened to the intellectual posters like Elayne Riggs? </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's funny that you would be asking that question.

[jalamere]

Wow! I can't believe I just read through 5 pages of comments on this story.
All I can say is: Unless Matt Murdock is defending Stan, I, for one, have lost intrest. Newsarama can tell me the results when the smoke clears. I'll be the one in the corner reading a comic book.

[AnthonyL]

[quote]With thinking like this, no wonder you lost the war. This is an open forum and people have the right to discuss their opinions whether you agree with them or not.<hr></blockquote>

WTF? What "war"? You're not even making sense. Yes, you can express your opinion. But your opinion on Lee's character has absolutley nothing to do with this conversation. This is about a legal matter. Ethics and past greediness, etc, have NOTHING to do with this. So drop it already.

[quote]I think everyone should always abide by their word. <hr></blockquote>

You're right, they should. Marvel SHOULD abide by their word and give Lee his money.

[quote]If you and all the other 10% contract whiners <hr></blockquote>

LOL. When you "state your opinion" it's valid. When others dont, they are whiners. And you have the nerve to spout "hypocrisy".

[quote] I give up. Whatever happened to the
intellectual posters like Elayne Riggs?<hr></blockquote>

I dont know Elayne well, but think I know Elayne well enough to know that she would see the legal standpoint of this all, not the ethical. She would agree (i presume) that weather or not he screwed people in the past, weather or not he's a greedy man, he's still LEGALLY owed money. And that's why you're argument about what kind of man he is has no place in this conversation.

If you dont GET that, well......

Anthony L

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by madcougar:
<strong>This isn't going to put Marvel out of business, but it is going to cost them a pretty penny when you take into account that this isn't just Spider-Man, but also Blade II, Daredevil, and Hulk.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Different films, different contracts.

For Spider-Man, Marvel got 1.5% of the box office gross plus 50% of the non-Marvel/non-Sony merchandise and a split of the production revenues.

For X-Men, Marvel got 500k flat -- which includes the sequel as well.

There's no word on whether Marvel got any percentage or marketing deals with Sony over Daredevil, and both Marvel and Universal are keeping their deal quiet.

[Academic]

[quote]Originally posted by Antisocial:
<strong>He was supposed to be out in L.A. helping Marvel get into movies and films, but the best that we ever saw was the Captain America and Punisher movies. He was paid a fortune and accomplished next to nothing. Avi Arad got the same gig and has turned Marvel into a player in Hollywood.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Read COMIC WARS. The Revlon trio (Perlman, etc.) used movie announcements to increase the interest in Marvel and then -- on purpose -- ensured the film would not be released to keep the revenue from never materializing. Marvel was more important as a tax shelter for them than a character studio.

Arad hasn't been all that successful, either. Remember: he's the man behind the Spider-Man Unlimited animated series. There were also rumors that Arad wanted new uniforms for the X-Men in X2 so that he could design a whole new group of toys (Cyclops in battle blue, Cyclops w/o battle jacket, etc.).

The 60 Minutes story made Arad look like a powerhouse, but that's really not true: if it were, he would be producing films other than those based on Marvel comic characters. The real powerhouse is Marvel itself. Hollywood needs recongizable concepts that are require lots of special effects for summer blockbusters, and comics have those -- with DC locked into Time-Warner, and the others (Universal, Fox, Sony, Paramount) stuck with Marvel and little else.

[pickard]

[quote]Originally posted by BLUES BROTHER:
<strong>Bad language and name calling are the signs of a small mind and a weak argument. I'm going to <a href="http://elayneriggs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://elayneriggs.blogspot.com/</a> from now on. Peace. I'm out.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are the hypocrite, not Stan.

When arthur pendragon called Stan a corporate c**ksucker a few hours ago, not only did you not have a problem with it, you quoted him and thanked him for his comments. 9:24 am, look it up.

Someone says something vaguely profane, but nowhere near as offensive, and it's too much for your delicate sensibilities.

Because the poster doesn't agree with you, the comment is offensive. You don't like Stan, so he doesn't have any contractual rights. I'll say this for you; you're consistent in your hypocrisy and lack of logic.

You're not posting anymore? That's a huge loss.

[AnthonyL]

[quote]AnthonyL, the word is whether. Weather is what you go outside in without an umbrella.<hr></blockquote>

Dear god no! Not my spelling!!! Make fun of my ears, make fun of my gut, or my receding hair line..but never, EVER MAKE FUN OF MY SPELLING

Get a life, pointdexter.

[quote]Pickard, you chose the name of a Star Trek Captain. Gee, you're not a nerd, are you?<hr></blockquote>

Didn't You JUST point out that making fun and swearing is the result of a weak mind?

My god, are you real? If so, dont breed. Please.

[quote]Where have all the intellectuals gone?<hr></blockquote>

As far away from you as humanly possible.

[quote]I'll still get my comics news here, but if I want to read or write intelligent commentary, I'm going to <a href="http://elayneriggs.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://elayneriggs.blogspot.com/</a> from now on. Peace. I'm out. <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, right. And when you start showing your lack of anything of any real substance over there, i'm sure you'll whine about THEM not being intellectual enough and retreat to, I dont know, Wizardworld?

And besides, since you've said you're leaving before, you'll forgive me if I dont believe you this time around.

I'll do a dance and say a prayer to the gods though that you keep your word and never come back.

Anthony L

[arthur pendragon]

No one denies that Stan has a contract that says he gets 10% of profits from film and television rights. The crux of the matter is how Marvel recognizes revenue and whether or not their accounting practices will mean Stan gets something or nothing. Between the legalese and "when is profit truly profit" argument, things are not as black and white as they may seem. I feel like Brian Hibbs has a much clearer case with his breach of contract suit than does Stan.
Time, as always, will tell.

[nighthawk]

It's hard for me to feel sorry for a man who allowed his old company(Stan Lee Media)to go down under without thinking of who it would affect. I worked for the bank where his accounts were held and he stiffed the bank for over $800,000. A lot of people lost their jobs because of his irresponsabilities.

[Slangword]

[quote]Originally posted by nighthawk:
<strong>It's hard for me to feel sorry for a man who allowed his old company(Stan Lee Media)to go down under without thinking of who it would affect. I worked for the bank where his accounts were held and he stiffed the bank for over $800,000. A lot of people lost their jobs because of his irresponsabilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe that the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Stan's partner in that business was apparently a crook who fled to Brazil (I believe) to avoid prosecution. It is certianly possible that Stan is not as good at business as he is at writing, editing , and promoting. I don't know if what happened was due to STan being irresponsible, or to him trusting someone who was not trustworthy.

Also, from what I've read about Stan, he probably did think about the people that were affected -- Mark Evanier has written that decades later, Stan still paled when asked about the Atlas layoffs in the late 50's. It's also well known that Stan had a policy of keeping old bullpenners working even when their styles fell somewhat out of favor. Yes, there are Kirby and Ditko issues, but I don't recall any public comment on the Kirby art issue, for instance, and we have no way of knowing what was said in private.

--Scott Rowland

[OCM]

[quote]Originally posted by AnthonyL:
<strong>

Yeah, right. And when you start showing your lack of anything of any real substance over there, i'm sure you'll whine about THEM not being intellectual enough and retreat to, I dont know, Wizardworld?

And besides, since you've said you're leaving before, you'll forgive me if I dont believe you this time around.

I'll do a dance and say a prayer to the gods though that you keep your word and never come back.

Anthony L</strong><hr></blockquote>

Didn't you once say you were going back to X-fan never to come back once? (During the whole Liefeld thread way back when.) Or was that wishful thinking on my part? :)

Anyway, about that war comment he made, I believe he was talking about North vs. South.

Just a wild guess, looking at the clues available.

[danzo]

[quote]Originally posted by TTOMLINS99:
But I will say 60 minutes got this going.Stan was probably willing to be a company man and keep this quiet until the whole country found out about it<hr></blockquote>hey, did you actually watch that episode of 60 Minutes? if any of you have it on tape, re-watch it; at one point Stan is asked about his financial rewards from the Spider-Movie and his unease as he says he's happy is downright palpable, the body language changes and it's clear that he's disseminating with his cheery answer....hoo-hah! so....
A.) this really is only about a recent contract.
B.) it's also a beautiful example of what goes around, comes around.... gee, maybe if Stan had done right in the past, he might be done right by now? (poor- literally- Kirby and Ditko, we all know they were the real creative genius' behind Marvel, Stan added little more than the words...)

[Elayne Riggs]

[quote]Originally posted by John O:
<strong>Whatever happened to the intellectual posters like Elayne Riggs? Sigh... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, whatever happened to me, anyway? :)

(Thanks for the blog plug in your sig, John, that's really sweet of you!)

I met Michael aka CAL (comicsareliterature) yesterday at the National Expo - yes, folks, he travelled from Montreal to NYC just for this convention, the dear loon! - and he chastised me for not telling more Newsarama regulars I'd be there, but y'know, it was in my blog and the link to that is always in my sig... well, regardless, Robin and I are there again today, so come by his table and see some sneak previews of the Thor and Iron Man pages he inked over Alan Davis, and he'll have some original art for sale too yadda yadda, lots of stuff over Leonard Kirk and Liam Sharp and Alan and others and you might even meet CAL if you're there today!!

- Elayne

[Elayne Riggs]

[quote]Originally posted by AnthonyL:
<strong>I dont know Elayne well, but think I know Elayne well enough to know that she would see the legal standpoint of this all, not the ethical. She would agree (i presume) that weather or not he screwed people in the past, weather or not he's a greedy man, he's still LEGALLY owed money.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, he believes he's still legally owed money. That's kind of the gist of the proposed lawsuit (and it's still just in the "maybe" stage, isn't it?). I think Mark Evanier put it best in his blog, a lot of this might come down to how Hollywood defines "profits." I'm sure we're all aware of how they love to play with numbers on paper out in La-La Land!!

But yeah, the proposed suit is mainly a matter of whether a contract has been breached. Whether Stan Lee deserves or merits the money (and personally I don't really see him hurting for it) is beside the point, because according to the contract Marvel believes he deserves it or they wouldn't have offered it to him.

- Elayne

[AnthonyL]

Well see, now that YOU'VE said it, it's all of a sudden going to be gospel and intelligent, even though that's what we've been telling Mr. Holier than thou art up there the whole time ;)

[quote]Didn't you once say you were going back to X-fan never to come back once? (During the whole Liefeld thread way back when.) Or was that wishful thinking on my part?<hr></blockquote>

No. I said that I was FROM X-fan and that I didnt understand Newsarama's posters. YOU said that I should probably go back to my precious X-fan if I want civil conversation. Big difference.

Nice to know you care though, can I put you on my Christmas card list? ;)

Anthony L

[Spikey_Jim]

Hmm. Interesting news (along with the always popular bitching session after).

It seems fairly cut and dry to me. Contract says 10%. They didn't give it him. Show me the arguement.

On the Kirby/Ditko front, I think it shows something of Stan that after 35/40 years, we still don't know why Ditko left Spiderman. Whether it's good or bad, we don't know.

Plus, would Ditko want the money? His personal beliefs are quite unusual as I recall.

Spikey_Jim

[OCM]

[quote]Originally posted by AnthonyL:
<strong>Well see, now that YOU'VE said it, it's all of a sudden going to be gospel and intelligent, even though that's what we've been telling Mr. Holier than thou art up there the whole time ;)



No. I said that I was FROM X-fan and that I didnt understand Newsarama's posters. YOU said that I should probably go back to my precious X-fan if I want civil conversation. Big difference.

Nice to know you care though, can I put you on my Christmas card list? ;)

Anthony L</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure why not? I'll probably see your letter bomb errrrrrr Xmas card before any of your precious new Liefeld comics. :)

[Greg O]

quote:

Originally posted by Anthony L:
And besides, since you've said you're leaving before, you'll forgive me if I dont believe you this time around.
I'll do a dance and say a prayer to the gods though that you keep your word and never come back.
Anthony L

quote:
----------------------
Originally posted by AnthonyL:
No. I said that I was FROM X-fan and that I didnt understand Newsarama's posters. YOU said that I should probably go back to my precious X-fan if I want civil conversation. Big difference.
Nice to know you care though, can I put you on my Christmas card list?
Anthony L

Actually Anthony you have insinuated that your finished posting before, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind, you do that fairly often, but when you start calling the kettle black.... well it leaves you open to charges of "hypocrisy"

GOD

[AnthonyL]

[quote]Sure why not? I'll probably see your letter bomb errrrrrr Xmas card before any of your precious new Liefeld comics.<hr></blockquote>

Well, i'm not going to argue with you on THAT. Hell, even i'm not suprised at the lateness of YB.

And who told you I was sending letter bombs this year? Anthrax is the new thing, dontcha know?

[quote]Actually Anthony you have insinuated that your finished posting before, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind, you do that fairly often, but when you start calling the kettle black.... well it leaves you open to charges of "hypocrisy"<hr></blockquote>

Insinuating something and STATING something are obviously different things. I said I was done defending Rob Liefeld here, and I meant it. Havent done it lately, dont plan on it. It's not worth it, too much stress ;)

Nor will is get full force into the notorious flame wars..it's again, not worth it.

But i've never blatently said "I'm going to where there is better, intelligent people, screw you all" or something similar.

When I leave a forum, I make it clear i'm leaving. I ususally throw a hissy fit and say something like "I"m leaving this board....forever!!!" And then I hear about all the flamers saying good ridance later on via PM's and AIM LOL

Anthony L