|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 15, 2014 14:50:43 GMT -5
To be fair, the true blame lies with the editors, critics, and (above all else) consumers (...) Very true. Customers at the time loved that heavily cross-hatched, anatomically grotesque and increasingly derivative stuff, locking the market in an endless cycle of crap production and crap consumption. It was like the spread of greasy fast food franchises all over the place. Paradoxically, that's also when independents started making a real impact; perhaps that was even a direct reaction. I know that things like Strangehaven, Berlin and Finder were a very welcome alternative to all the crappy titles with "Blood" or "Strike" in their name! (And come to think of it, the more traditional house style of the early Valiant was also a blessing for the same reason). |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 15, 2014 15:00:39 GMT -5
To be fair, the true blame lies with the editors, critics, and (above all else) consumers (...) Very true. Customers at the time loved that heavily cross-hatched, anatomically grotesque and increasingly derivative stuff, locking the market in an endless cycle of crap production and crap consumption. It was like the spread of greasy fast food franchises all over the place. Paradoxically, that's also when independents started making a real impact; perhaps that was even a direct reaction. I know that things like Strangehaven, Berlin and Finder were a very welcome alternative to all the crappy titles with "Blood" or "Strike" in their name! (And come to think of it, the more traditional house style of the early Valiant was also a blessing for the same reason). The popularity of Image and the resulting backlash that helped the indie/Vertigo boom take off kind of mirror what was happening with rock music at the same exact same time, with the Image guys being hair bands and indie/Vertigo being grunge. The Image guys were all show with no content, so people started looking for more satisfying alternatives. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 15, 2014 15:15:47 GMT -5
So it's OK if John Romita wants freedom but not okay for McFarlane? Yes. Romita spent years helping to define the character and had definite ideas for the franchise he'd spent years cultivating. McFarlane was still the new guy on the block, jumping the line to get first crack at this, and had no real idea what to do for the character beyond giving him his own title. Really -- what happened in the first year of that title that was in any way noteworthy? As I said in an earlier post, everyone who bought into McFarlane is to blame as well, but it takes a certain kind of a**hole to walk in and demand such things to begin with, well aware that legends who contributed way more to the character for far longer than you are waiting in the wing for their chance, and you are jumping the line. Marvel was clearly giving them those rights, as well as the rights of others (see my point about Claremont again). McFarlane had total creative control, freedom to introduce new characters and receive royalties on them, and he was influencing other top selling artists to achieve the same at The House of Ideas. What he wasn't getting was the kind of money that comes from OWNING a property and company. McFarlane was getting money and control -- moreso than any veteran creator at Marvel -- but he wanted more. To what? They gave McFarlane and cohorts everything they asked for. I think it was clearly the reverse in this circumstance, with McFarlane exploiting Marvel. I didn't exactly see him standing up for anyone else's rights either. As mentioned earlier, he stole properties and creative control from others, and he didn't exactly go join the Bill Finger fan club or join the fight to get Kirby's art returned to his family. Wow. I just don't know what to do with this. Sure. McFarlane publicly took full credit for creating Venom, when he doesn't even have a partial claim to the character. He was conceived of by David Michelinie, and the look was conceived of by Mike Zeck. Michelinie finally sent a letter to Wizard Magazine, which they published in 1993, calling McFarlane out on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 15:20:26 GMT -5
Some great Stan Lee moments (or what I thought the thread would be about).... Stan swings into action gets action figure...  Stan gets de-aged by the High Evolutionary...  Stan Lee facing down an angry Ben Grimm...promising to accomplish the one hting that has always eluded super-genius Reed Richards....  Stan faces down the devourer of worlds....  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 15, 2014 15:27:29 GMT -5
Stan Lee providing advice:
(Back in the days a Stan Lee appearance in a film was an event!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 15:28:26 GMT -5
After reading both hermit & shax on the subject, about all I can say is, "a pox on both their houses."
(McFarlane & Marvel, that is. Not the two posters!)
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 15, 2014 15:29:51 GMT -5
Some great Stan Lee moments (or what I thought the thread would be about).... Don't forget:  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 15, 2014 15:30:39 GMT -5
But I WANT to forget. I really really WANT to. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 15, 2014 15:35:45 GMT -5
Now, Dr. Wertham... Do you really want that comic to go away?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 15:36:08 GMT -5
All I can say is thank goodness he was reading a treasury sized book and not a digest....
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on May 15, 2014 15:37:25 GMT -5
For the book's sake, I hope he was wearing a mylar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 15, 2014 15:53:31 GMT -5
How is CGC going to grade that comic?
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 15, 2014 16:13:31 GMT -5
My favorite Stan Lee moment was his appearance on POLITICALLY INCORRECT. Stan talked engagingly about real-world politics with the other guests and said nothing about comics, fantasy, or Marvel. I wish I had taped it back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on May 15, 2014 16:15:30 GMT -5
Yes. Romita spent years helping to define the character and had definite ideas for the franchise he'd spent years cultivating. McFarlane was still the new guy on the block, jumping the line to get first crack at this, and had no real idea what to do for the character beyond giving him his own title. Really -- what happened in the first year of that title that was in any way noteworthy? The quality of the title isn't really the point. McFarlane isn't a bad person for not being John Romita. He asked for something and he got it. Obviously it could have happened to worthier people, but no matter how good or bad a creator is they aren't a**holes for wanting freedom. Money talks. Being ambitious and successful isn't being a a**hole. McFarlane and the other Image guys left Marvel because Marvel wouldn't grant them ownership of their creations. As for the Claremont thing, the exact same thing happened to Roger Mcackenzie when Frank Miller started writing Daredevil. Denny O'Neil sided with Milller and fired Mackenzie. He definitely stood up for other people's rights. Not the rights of old ghosts like Finger and Kirby, the rights of his peers. He co-founded a company for creators who didn't want to play ball with Marve and DC to come make their own comics and own them. As far as exploiting Marvel goes, I don't think so. I think it was an even playing field. McFarlane's stuff sold like hotcakes, Marvel wanted to appease him, they worked out a deal and when McFarlane Every story has fans. Just because it doesn't appeal to us doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to somebody. It is, ultimately, a matter of taste. The hypocrisy I see in a lot of people is they criticize current comics for not being fun, then turn around and dump on the Image guys for being nothing but attitude. It may have alienated older fans but it certainly appealed to children of the era (I wasn't a fan because there were no comics in my area but the aesthetic showed up elsewhere on TV and in toys and we all loved it). Oh that old gag. While I agree McFarlane claiming full credit for Venom's creation is dirty pool, there is a big difference between claiming a credit and screwing someone out of their rights. Nobody suffered from McFarlane claiming full credit of Venom, while McFarlane's actual credit (co-creator) is industry standard. Anyways, my point of all of this is that while McFarlane was part of a trend that turned comics into a weird corner for a while, I don't think he deserves blame for it. He produced product that people liked to buy which was one more addition to the dark and gritty trend spawned by Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns and he had the ambition to see it through and become a huge success. And part of that success was establishing creator owned comics as a viable business venture, resulting in the American comic industry being more diverse than it has ever been. That is worth the dark age of the early 90s. And of course, the ULTIMATE point of this thread had nothing to do with Todd McFarlane and everything to do with Stan Lee's now hidden depths as a comics creator rather than spokesman |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on May 15, 2014 16:33:52 GMT -5
What McFarlane did to dismantle the comic industry: 1. Pushed for artists to gain creative control over titles at Marvel. He got his own Spiderman title and near limitless creative control over it when people like Romita had been begging for editorial freedom for years. Indirectly, this is what pushed Chris Claremont out of X-Men as Jim Lee soon followed his lead, demanding creative control over character and content because his drawings were cool. 2. Once Marvel had bent over backward, totally alienating its existing talent and compromising its visions across the board to cater to these folks, McFarlane led them all away to form Image ("F--- you, company who did everything for me!") and reaffirmed with a more powerful voice than ever that appearance and hype mattered more than substance. 3. Screwed a number of people out of their creative rights (Venom and Angela immediately come to mind) There's more that I can infer he did, but it's pretty much a matter of fact that the above three were done by him. Sorry, shax. Knocking Marvel or DC down a peg doesn't count as dismantling the comics industry. Both companies needed knocking down a peg. I don't think McFarlane took Venom from anybody, as Marvel seems to own it. And, McFarlane is a douche, and was a douche about Angela, but nonetheless, Marvel seems to own that now to. So except for some douchiness, I don't know what you can really hold against the guy. Crazyoldhermit is right. McFarlane helped found Image. And Image is the best thing to happen to the comics industry in the last 25 years. |
|
