View Michael Netzer's profile on LinkedIn
 
 
SYSTEM
The New Comic Book of Life
Comic Book Creator's Party
Comic Book Creators' Guild
Growing Earth Consortium
Flaming Sword
Rabble-Rouser
MODULE
Home
Mission
Galleries
Comics
J'Onn J'Onzz
Cultural
Political
Cosmos
Messiah
Briefs
Interviews
Articles
Quotes
Photos
Biographies
Bibliographies
Art for Sale
Amazon
Feeds
Recent
Search
Links
Contact
PLUG-INS
MN Wikipedia Biography
MN Wikipedia German
MN Wikipedia Hebrew
GE Theory Wikipedia
Uri-On Wikipedia
MN Wikipedian
MN ComicSpace
MNO Hebrew
MN YouTube
MN Amazon
WAGW
Marv Wolfman Mending Bridges
Comics
Written by MN   
Friday, 04 January 2008
And a compliment from Stan Lee adds Mr. Excelsior to Portraits of the Creators.

Clifford Meth has posted an interview with Marv Wolfman at his blog, Everyone's Wrong and I'm Right, wherein Marv discusses his fallout with Marvel Comics, following his 1997 litigation against the publisher over royalties and intellectual property rights to Blade.

    In an early letter to them, I had originally asked only for the same percentages DC routinely gives its creators, and frankly the same one Marvel does for its creators (since 1978 or so) but very late one night I was called by one of their company Presidents (I think from Marvel Studios) and was told that if I wanted to get anything from them I'd have to—in his words—"Sue us." That completely threw me. There had been nothing in any of my correspondence to that time that even hinted of that thought.

Marv went on to file a lawsuit against Marvel but the struggle did not bring about a change in the status of the character, nor did it provide him with any benefits from film and television licensing that Marvel has profited from, through using a character that Marv Wolfman had himself created.

    Without mentioning names, I had heard stories that one of the people responsible for many of their characters found it impossible to go into Toys 'R Us because he'd see characters he created that he never saw a penny from, and I was determined, win or lose, I would not let that happen to me.

    I didn't want this to be a legal case but that exec made it clear the company wouldn't give the same deal they were already giving others and the situation unfortunately escalated. I wish it never happened, as it certainly hurt professionally and financially, but that exec made it clear suing them was the only thing I could do.

The tone of the interview is conciliatory, even to the degree of Marv proposing that he may not have been ready then, as a comics writer, for the position of Editor In Chief of Marvel in the mid 1970's, which demanded a full time business orientation that he wasn't prepared for.

    I loved being EiC at Marvel (and later senior editor at DC and at Disney Adventures magazine) when it was a creative post. We were able to do comics we wanted to read. Comics that tried to preserve what was great about the company while pushing it forward at the same time. We were also attempting to "grow up" our stories as the age of our readers got older as well. Unfortunately, at that time Marvel was sold to a company called Cadence, and I have to say that company wasn't quite the best. My job slowly became far too business and much less creative, and Cadence kept trying to find ways to make things cheaper and worse. I was in my mid-20s at the time and really didn't know how to fight them, wasn't good at politics, and awful at business. I'd like to think I'd be a lot better now.

Notwithstanding the perpetual injustice since the inception of the comics industry regarding creators' rights and the one-sided profit-sharing mechanism of a business model which oppresses those who contribute the raw materials to its financial success, it is an admirable and graceful position that Marv Wolfman takes in this interview. In the absence of a guild or union for comics creators, the present situation leaves writers and artists extremely compromised. Creators are left with little choice of measures to improve their lot with publishers and corporate marketeers, who stride the yellow-brick road to enormous financial gain from creations such as Marv and countless others have given the comics industry and modern pop-culture.

But we continue to hope for better days...


Meanwhile, Marvel excelsior supreme, Stan Lee, stopped by Clifford Meth's blog to comment on the interview.

    Interesting interview with Marv W, Cliff. Handled very tastefully.


Stan himself has come under fire in the past on this issue, having been representative of Marvel Comics business policy with its creators. Criticism was especially notable during the struggle which his partner in Marvel property creations, the late great Jack Kirby, waged for the return of his original artwork during the 1980's. It's been said that having been in a position to change the tides on creator issues, Stan Lee might not have pursued such a course with enough rigor, especially considering that he himself remains of the first and more seminal comics creators in the history of the industry.

While this side of the coin might be argued with some measure of scrutiny, exercising a minimal degree of intellectual honesty places a far greater burden for this calamity on the creators' community itself. Several attempts to form a union of comics writers and artists have repeatedly encountered the staunchest opposition from the creators themselves. The effort made for forming a guild in the late 1970's, which I was an active contributor to, faced its greatest criticism, not from DC or Marvel Comics, but rather from comics creators, overly apprehensive about lending their names to it for fear of repercussion from the publishers. during all these attempts, the number of writers and artists willing to sign on was never enough to enable the formation of the first union of comics creators.

As irony would have it, most of the creators who were reluctant to support a guild then, have now been entirely shut out from any work at the major publishers, who consider the wealth of talent and experience they offer the medium, as being of little value to contemporary editorial policy.

But we continue to hope for better days... and again look for ways to turn this hope into a tangible course of constructive action.


In the spirit of grace and goodwill which Stan Lee bestowed on the interview with Marv Wolfman, he also offered a few nice words about the drawing of Marv I'd produced as part of Portraits of the Creators sketchbook, which Clifford used in his blog entry, and also appears at the top of this article.

    But I never saw that drawing of Marv before. It's really great.


And so in the same spirit of goodwill and grace, we can now take this opportunity to also mend any damaged bridges between Stan Lee and the comics creators, putting past trepidations aside and welcoming the man of many Marvels into Portraits of the Creators sketchbook.

Thank you, Stan, for the kind words, good spirit, and the fabulous treasures you've given to the Superhero mythology.


Stan Lee.

Portraits of the Creators.


Comments
Add New Search RSS
Ben Herman     |2008-01-08 04:51:28
In regards to you bringing up the failed attempt to get artists to for unions in
the past, here's something I wrote in response to an article on ageism in comic
books. I think the same principal applies here...

I cannot help but wonder if
one significant aspect of this is due to the ready availability of young artists
who are willing, indeed, eager, to work for a pittance, because it gives them
the opportunity to draw the characters they grew up reading. At first these
artists are so thrilled to be drawing Spider-Man or Batman or whoever that they
don't care that they are being underpaid. After a while, though, as the
excitement & novelty wears off, these artists start asking for better pay. At
which point Marvel and/or DC can dump them and go to the next generation of fans
for naive, cheap labor. And the cycle continues on.
MN   |2008-01-08 12:01:59
It seems your statement holds some truth, Ben.

Most entertainment industry
mediums have a very similar young talent base to work with but they find a
balance between young and old talent because they know that the ability and
experience of more seasoned creators translates into profits.

While the
comics, seemingly doing everything it can not to become profitable, allows
itself this imbalance wherein its entire creator base is dictated by the young
talent cycle you mention.
Frank Lee Delano   |2008-01-11 04:44:03
You know, I admire Stan Lee and the Image Seven more than I do Jack Kirby. I
recognize the contribution the "King" made to comics, but in many ways,
he's the perfect example of what's wrong with comic creators. He toiled for
years, to varying degrees of acknowledgement, before exploding at middle age
with the Marvel renaissance. While his dynamic artwork surely made young fans
give the books their initial interest though, it was Lee's revelutionary and
irreverent scripts that held them. Further, Lee's gift for promotion tied the
writer and all his creations together into one embraceable whole.

Meanwhile,
rather than further insinuate themselves into the line and company, artists like
Kirby and Ditko remained passive to the breaking point, then jumped ship for
greener pastures, repeatedly. Despite abandoning Marvel and his creations, Kirby
kept coming back, either for more abuse or for attempts to reclaim
"rights" he should have known full well he'd signed away well prior.
Meanwhile, you have more even-tempered company men like Kubert and Romita
developing literal legacies, or savy businessmen like Kane and Eisner who made
sure their pockets would never empty, regardless of their output.

This leads
us to the greatest counter-argument against the "vicious cycle"
discussed here, the Image 7. Here was a group of mavericks who knew not only
exactly when to leave the big leagues to strike out on their own, but also the
necessity to do so en masse, befriending their greatest competition. Between
their success and that of Stan Lee's, it becomes clear how best to insure
longevity and fortune in comics: dig in, or strike out. You don't just keep
crossing back and forth across the street between DC and Marvel like most
artists, because all that does is expose a lack of vision and/or fidelity.


Stan Lee has, at least since the Marvel turnaround, had a knack for knowing
where best to be, and for how long, at a given time. He also had the vision to
turn a highly neurotic and decidedly Jewish view of super-heroes into part of a
cultural revolution. I love the man myself, and believe it was never his duty to
champion the rights of any save his own. I don't believe he ever portrayed
himself as anything other than a good-natured and passionate opportunist.
Presuming he should become a social crusader just because he was the public face
of a corporation reveals hubris in the objector, not the subject.
MN   |2008-01-11 12:50:12
This might be a good place to provide a little contrary fodder, Frank.

While I
agree with most of what you say about Stan, Jack, the Image 7 and other
creators, it might be unfair to compare them competitively in order to arrive at
a defined path the creators should be walking, which appears to support personal
opportunism. There exists a "lot in life" for each one of us and we're
sometimes best served by accepting this reality and doing the best we can with
what we have to work with. I believe Kirby and Ditko did this, considering the
cards they were dealt to begin with.

The Image 7 revolution in comics did not
come about merely from the vision and strategy of the creators who led it. The
conditions in the comics industry at the time had brought about this one time
opportunity for a group of creators to break loose from the ties of publisher
strings, and this fell into the laps of the creators who had the savvy to take
advantage of it. Such conditions have never been a norm in the comics and were
rarely if ever available for others.

The switch to direct market distribution
and instilling of royalties in the early 80's created the marketing frenzy
which allowed McFarlane, Lee, Silvestri and others to become millionaires
overnight from their comics works. They didn't create these conditions through
brilliant strategy. The situation simply fell into their laps and they ran with
it. I can guarantee you that had a handful of creators won a jackpot lottery
together in the mid 1970's and found ourselves with millions of dollars to work
with, we would likely have attempted such a coup also.

You're right in that
Stan Lee should not be begrudged for having taken care of himself. On the other
hand, I do believe the comics industry is best served through a little more than
personal opportunism. In the end, and regardless of the socio-economic
conditions that have brought about the present situation, the imbalance of
justice and fair play within the comics medium regarding its publisher/creator
relationship, cries for some form of adjustment.

It would be unfair to ask
everyone to be a McFarlane, Lee, Kubert or Kane. Comics creators are a varied
lot and together, they make up the entirety of the creator community that's made
the medium what it is. Within this mix, there exists a majority of low key,
humble and perhaps less business savvy creators who've also contributed
considerably to the mythology.

Some creators have opted to make efforts which
benefit the entire community and not only themselves. The return of original
art, as an example, was made possible by such efforts, as was the instilling of
royalties which allowed the Image 7 to succeed. I believe this is a line and
direction which best serves the medium, without pointing fingers at past
shortcomings or those guilty of unfair practices.

I don't believe most people
who criticize Stan Lee are aware of the personal relationship he had with Jack
Kirby which brought about the contention between them regarding the return of
his original art to Jack. I believe it's enough to say that the Marvel line of
comics was a synthesis of both of these creators together and in that, it's
rather unfortunate that they couldn't have remained in agreement later on.


Suffice it to say that Jack Kirby remains the undisputed king of the form,
without whom the comics wouldn't be what they are today. Nothing that he did
afterwards can take away from the outstanding contribution he's made and his
fabulous inner world which sprawls on the pages of so many unforgettable comics.
Frank Lee Delano   |2008-01-12 05:02:18
I'm nowhere near so concerned with personal opportunism as personal
responsibility.

As I said before, I love what Stan produced in the Silver
Age and feel he had full right to the rewards he received. However, those
benefits were in no way comperable to the fortunes won by the Image 7 for their
daring. Now, I don't know who would argue that, even taken as a whole, the Image
7 have made the same level of artistic contribution to the medium that Stan Lee
did. They just happened to decide to take full advantage of their cache at the
exact right moment in time and in a decidedly commercial endeavor. Even under
those terms though, to the man their contributions have eclipsed the sparse
efforts of Stan Lee since the Silver Age. In most every instance, Lee's work
over the last 40 years has had the stink of opportunism and utter lack of
conviction all about it. The Image boys clearly display greater enthusiasm,
conviction, and intent to produce works of greater quality. Even Rob
Liefeld.

My problems begin when Stan Lee and/or the Image Seven are openly
criticised for not taking responsibility for the lives and careers of other
creators. The former clearly pursued commercial success, gained it, and are
attacked mearly because of that fact. No one tries to slag on Wally Wood at
Tower, or Dick Giordano at Charlton, both as much work-for-hire houses as any.
Neal Adams has always been among comics' loudest voices for creator rights, but
I'm unaware of anyone at Continuity walking away with that companies' published
properties. Stan Lee worked for twenty years in an industry that was the
artistic equivalent of a sweatshop, he did alright for himself be beconming a
company man rather than "hired help," and revisionist history seeks to
punish him for that. Jack Kirby, who was always jumping companies and chomping
at the bit for a better deal, continues to be looked on with rose-colored
glasses. Its hypocritical, deeply unfair, and I take issue with the
practice.

I also hasten to add that I am in no way a union buster. I'm proud
of the people who've fought and continue to fight for equitable treatment within
corporate comics. Art returns, especially in light of the original work's shoddy
treatment at publishers' hands, are just plain horse sense outside courtroom
polemics. Certainly, if a creator produces an image that will be replicated
endlessly and over decades for profit, they should get a piece of the action.
That said, if you strike a deal, you stick to the terms agreed upon, and
shouldn't demonize individuals who chose a different path.

Artists, generally
speaking, aren't the best businessmen. Art, by nature, is abstract and
intuitive. Business tends toward the linear and conservative. Comics, and really
cartooning in general, is a medium in which artists can benefit from their work
in an immediate and sizable way. However,as their field falls under the heading
"commercial art," the art is largely valued based on how much money it
makes for someone in the present, and the degree to which that person is the
creator is determined by their business acumen. Otherwise, they fall into the
same cliche as most great artists, unappreciated in their time, if ever, and
often exploited regardless of their intentions posthumously.

In a perfect
world, an artist could follow their muse in their own time, fully supported and
appreciated. That is not our world, and frankly, what inspiration would their be
for great art is such a place? Without a statement to make, intended for social
change, doesn't "art" just become a hobby, or an element of interior
design? I recognize those who decry Stan Lee see themselves as defenders of the
weak and righters of wrong, an artform in itself. Its just that I find it petty
and misguided in the larger context of the industry machine and our material
world to target a creative person who happened to stumble into a comfortable
life unburdened by some useless guilt about his circumstances. That goes right
past bleeding heart liberalism into the sort of bludgeoning self-righteous that
makes the right so distateful, and allows politics to dimminish an artist's
worth. Stan Lee never declared himself anyone's personal savior, so damn those
fools who nevertheless line up with hammer and nails in hand.
MN   |2008-01-15 16:19:15
You make some good points, Frank. I'm only concerned with an unfair comparison
of creators, which compromises some. Kirby was at Marvel exclusively for more
than a decade and jumping ship was quite the norm when he did it. What interest
can anyone have in loyalty to a company which prematurely declares that his
intellectual creative work is their property and he will not be rewarded for the
success it brings the company?

To me, the integrity of the artists is primarily
in the work they produce and based on that, the integrity of Jack Kirby as a
comics artist is impeccable and admirable. Why he was not given back his
original, which every other artist in the industry did enjoy, based on a legal
technicality, says more about the spiteful system he worked for and not about
himself.

I simply don't believe it's fair to implicate Jack Kirby based on the
performance of Stan Lee. They are two differing personalities with very
different roles.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
 

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
 
 
Copyright © 2008