McFarlane is a douche and the credit for Image becoming a safe haven for independants belongs to Jim Valentino.
And anyway,why are we letting McTurdlane hijack a nice Stan Lee Thread.Throw the bum McFakelane into the Rob Liefeld thread where he belongs
So Stan,I apologize for this rudeness on behalf of CCF

It is for the sake of demonstrating that McFarlane pushed for total creative control even though he didn't have any creative ideas. He just wanted his own "Todd McFarlane's Spider-Man" title, and it's extra insulting considering that Romita DID have ideas for the title, had been pushing for creative control for years, and was overlooked when McFarlane wasn't. Marvel's fault? Sure. But in workplace's there is a pecking order to be respected; you don't go over the head of someone you respect, and Romita was worthy of respect. It was presumptuous for McFarlane, a relative newbie, to expect he was worthy of such exclusive treatment OVER the needs of others who had been there longer and done more.

This goes back to your idea that McFarlane somehow boosted up or supported his colleagues. He didn't. He simply catered to the other artists making big bucks that he wanted to bring along with him in order to strengthen his own brand and profit margin. He stood on the backs of legends that he completely overlooked in order to do better for himself.



No, they're a**holes for wanting something they know they have no right to ask for -- especially if they are likely to get it and it comes at the expense of veteran colleagues that they should respect and stand by. And let's be clear -- McFarlane didn't want freedom. He had nothing in particular to say with Spider-Man. He wanted control.




When you use money to get what you want when you know others are more deserving of it, then yes, you are an a**hole.



Of course not. That isn't Marvel's business model, nor did they ever claim it was. They had a generous royalty system. And no, McFarlane and the bunch weren't obligated to work for them, but the fact that McFarlane first demanded those things from Marvel (at his colleageus' expense) and then didn't just leave, but carried out all the talent with him, riding on a reputation he only earned because of how Marvel built up his reputation, and building a new company almost entirely out of carbon copies of existing characters (not innovative new characters that they clearly deserved ownership and total control over), strikes me as a d*ck move on so many levels. Was it illegal? Of course not, but it was wrong.

I have no loyalty to Marvel, to DC, to Stan Lee, nor any other aspects of the comic book establishment, but McFarlane was in the wrong on this one, and Marvel had tried its best to keep him happy.



Yes, but it was hardly common practice then, and McKenzie wasn't doing a particularly good job. Claremont BUILT that franchise, so if McFarlane's point is pushing for creative freedom and damning The Man for not giving it to him, then it's a bit ironic to screw over one of the guys who deserved such ownership and control most of all.



He stood up for the rights of people who were the hot commodities in the field that he could use for his own means. He screwed over tons of others who didn't suit his needs (Romita, Claremont, Michilinie, Zeck, Gaiman, etc). With all his money and power, he also remained totally silent during some high profile legal battles by creators seeking legal recompense for how they were used by the Big Two. I don't recall his chiming in over Gary Friedrich, do you?



You can make all the garbage you want; that's your right, but McFarlane was on an explicit mission to empower trendy artists over established talent so that EVERYONE was producing garbage. I think my biggest point really boils down to this -- had McFarlane been out for himself, screwed over some colleagues, and then gone on to self-publish, I still wouldn't think highly of the guy, but the real damage he did was, first, coercing Marvel to put up and coming artists above veteran creators and, thus, not only disrespect them but also silent their creative voices and replace excellence with tripe, and then build Image up around the same concept of art above all after having already weakened the competition's output from the inside. It's one thing to give the masses what they want, but McFarlane went much further than that.



But McFarlane wasn't even a co-creator. All he added was the tongue. Mike Zeck designed the costume. And you're right that my terminology is off -- I didn't mean rights; I meant credit.



He led and engineered it.



And silenced the voices that were working to make something better, all while being the mouthpiece and hype machine for this new direction.



Much as I feel those works are overrated, there's no way McFarlane and the bulk of Image's output deserves a place in the same sentence as them.



I agree with all of this. McFarlane did these things well, though I'm not sure that helped anyone but him and the guys he brought with him to Image.



I thoroughly disagree. The rise of Vertigo aside, this brought about an age in which everyone was turning out the same generic eye candy. There was FAR more diversity on comic shelves in the 40s, 50s, 70s, and 80s (maybe not the 60s).



Isn't that a bit ironic? I mean, I agree this is true of Stan Lee, but it's also true of McFarlane who, beyond the basic concept of Spawn, didn't seem to have an original idea in his brain, nor a particularly strong grasp of human anatomy. He took the Spider-Man alien costume, put the Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation on it, added the semi-interesting twist of his being from Hell and coming closer to damnation every time he used his powers, then sat back and let other people actually write and draw the series.

His "Who Wants To Be A Superhero?" show was pretty great.

I don't think anyone who has any intention of ever getting work from either Marvel or Image is going to comment publicly on such a thing, but we know McFarlane pushed for him and his people to have more creative control, and that this was done at the expense of other people who already had creative control over those titles.

He pushed against Marvel editorial and the coporate structure that treated talent like shit for decades. Good. They needed it.

But you seem to view this as harmful... somehow... to the rest of the writers and artists at Marvel. And I don't get it. When MacFarlane wanted more control he ended up talking 'em into launching a new Spider-man title. It's not like he took someone's job, and I don't see how this came at the expense of Romita or anyone else.

I guess Jim Lee took some of the control for the direction of (at least half of ) the X-men franchise away from Chris Claremont, but I can't think of any other case of older, established talent getting hurt by the Image guys.

Ok that makes some sense - The equivalent of all the guys from the Caniff school being forced to draw like Kirby or Neal Adams in the '60s and '70s. Still, as I see it, mainstream comic art tends to mostly function within a rigid set of stylistic constraints, and a lot of talented artists are stuck trying to draw "The Marvel Way" - whatever that is this week - instead of developing their individual skills.

I'm not implying this is a good thing - Mainstream comics as a whole would be far
better if they stressed individual artistic development over chasing a trend. But the "draw like THAT guy, the kids love THAT guy" method of art directing has been around since the '40s.

I can't see blaming McFarlane for being popular. I blame Marvel for homogenizing their product to look like whatever they perceive as popular - just like they always did.

And simply by realizing his personal value to the company and pushing back, McFarlane demonstrated the value of the top tier creative talent, which is going to make it way harder for,say, Kirby level mistreatment of artists to happen in the future. This is a good thing!

Dang !

Kurtzman is huge. Quite frankly, I'm surprised he tolerated it.