Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="teitan" data-source="post: 2304495" data-attributes="member: 3457">Don't go placing all the blame on Stan Lee. Up until the sell of Marvel the fault lies on Goodman shoulders and in actuality ont he creators themselves shoulders. They didn't think these characters would be around 20+ years later let alone 40+. The problems between Lee and Kirby don't even extend to credit necessarily but to break downs in communication and the fight with Lee and Ditko had NOTHING to do with credit on Spider-man and Ditko still has no beef over the Spider-man franchise. The issue with Ditko is his devotion to Ayn Rand and the Green Goblin. Ditko did not want the Goblin to be Norman Osborn because he didn't believe in MPD etc. Steve and Jack still haven't gotten fair compensation for their creations for Marvel, not even a tenth. Steve isn't pursuing it as he feels he has moved on with his life and Jack died though Simon has been fighting for the Kirby estate in his own battles with Marvel and in fact got a major win in the Captain America case and if you look at the credits page you see : Captain America created by Joe Simon and Jack KIrby. It isn't Stan Lee's fault though. he may have been in charge of what got published but he certainly wasn't the man who said who gets what because if that were the case Jim Shooter would STILL be EIC of Marvel and Jack Kirby and company would have received every surviving piece of artwork that Marvel still has that they produced. Stan is all about giving credit when it is due and definitely wants people to know about Jack and Steve as in his own words "there wouldbe no Marvel comics now without Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko". There are two sides to every story and most fans take one side and run... you seem to have taken Kirby's. I support Kirby, wholesale but if you think Stan screwed jack, think again but Stan was answering to corporate suits at Marvel then and now. He still works for Marvel in a consultant capacity.As to Marv Wolfman... he was an editor at Marvel at the time and he knew full well when he created Blade and Deacon Frost that Marvel would own them and he would have NO claim to them. He didn't get any money because at the time that Marvel was publishing Tomb of Dracula, the ENTIRE time, their wasn't a royalty policy at Marvel and he never signed a later contract with Marvel to ensure future royalties based on his work until AFTER Blade came out. In fact, the first book that Marvel issued a Royalty check for was Alpha Flight no. 1 and that was to John Byrne. That year and month was when Shooter FINALLY got the program in place. Secondly, the ONLY characters that were featured in the first Blade movie that Wolfman had a claim on were Blade and Deacon Frost. Even the Blade character was questionable because outside of the name, being black and a vampire killer, the movie Blade has little to do with the original comic version. WHistler was created by David Goyer for Kris Kristofferson and the character was first introduced in the Spider-man cartoon as part of a try out to see if a movie featuring Blade could work. Wolfman deserves no credit for Whistler or any other characters in the first TWO Blade movies. In the third movie he has a claim to Hannibal King.Jason</blockquote>

Verification