doomwad

Name:

Bio:


doomwad's Recent Comments
July 16, 2013 6:40 pm X-Factor is relaunching. I wouldn't be surprised if PAD continues on the title.
November 28, 2012 12:13 am BTW, I named my cat Kirby in recognition of my admiration and respect for Jack Kirby, so my defense of Stan should not be taken as a slight to Jack.
November 28, 2012 12:00 am @Josh - I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. As ConanXXXV points out, Jack signed a contract that was aligned with the practices of the day. Some could argue that Stan was reasonable to think he was due sole credit based on the standards and practices of the time. As an intellectual property attorney, I can tell you this is a very nuanced situation and I don't feel it is so black and white as it is being portrayed in this post. I respect that you feel differently, but I also can't see how this video is an example of Stan taking credit for Jack's work. It just isn't there. There is no example in the video of Stan taking credit for Jack's work. If I am wrong, I will eat the cover off a Marvel comic. So, is it appropriate to overlay some narative on this video that Stan Lee "has made a habit of taking full credit over decades"? I say thee nay. I am glad you posted this video - it is extrememly interesting, if nothing more than seeing the bullpen in the 80s and the wonderful hair everyone sported. However, this video does not show what you think it shows. Other people have tried to point to other specific instances and have tried to advance the same narative. See: http://news.moviefone.com/2012/04/24/stan-lee-jack-kirby-avengers-credit_n_1450146.html However, as explained in the above article, the situation is more complex than what was originally asserted, and I think Stan had nothing to do with Jack's name being left off the Avengers movie in that example. This video is another example, I submit, of Stan being wrongly accused of bad behavior. It was a PR piece which Stan had no control over. This video is awesome and definitely worth seeing, and I am glad you posted it. It is ok for two people who love comics to disagree - that is what makes comics fun. Each of us is our own continuity. I do not seek to offend or be rude, but just wish to give respect where it is due*. Don't worry Josh, if you ever make a video and twenty years later someone unfarily calls you out for not mentioning Conor or Ron, I will come to your defense ;-) * especially in view of comments like "Does it feel like we should be a bit more angry at Stan Lee?"
November 27, 2012 7:31 pm @WheelHands - My point is not that Jack Kirby is not worthy of respect. He is a legend. I have read many books about the early days of Marvel. I understand that the whole big picture is nuanced. That is why I am confused why the lead tag line to this article is "This is why Roz Kirby didn't like Stan." I hear what you are saying, but I just don't think this video is an explanation for "Why Roz Kirby didn't like Stan." I don't see anything in this video offensive to merit the negative suggestions and comments about Stan Lee. You say that Stan should have mentioned Kirby in this short video. If it was appropriate for this 20/20 piece, I would definitely agree, and that the piece should include Colan, Ditko, Joe Simon, and others. The 20/20 piece was about Marvel Comics. Stan Lee and Marvel go hand in hand, and I think it is ok for Stan to talk about Marvel Comics in a piece about Marvel Comics without mentioning Joe Simon, Jack Kirby, etc. I wouldn't get upset if I watched a YouTube video with an interview with Abe Lincoln if he didn't mention George Washington in the same breath. I fear that younger readers, who haven't read the books and know the backstory that you and I do, will read the headline and the comments and conclude something that is not supported by this video. This, IMHO, is disrespectful towards Stan's legacy and contributions. Jack's contributions to the medium can be discussed without diminishing Stan's contributions or disparaging the man himself.
November 27, 2012 4:53 pm I guess we agree that it isn't cool to pile on Stan but disagree on whether it is fair to do so based on the 20/20 video. I agree it was a PR piece for Marvel, and so I don't think it needed to discuss the content you think is lacking. I also think that Stan just answered some questions asked by 20/20, and 20/20 put together the piece that aired. I don't know why you say that giving Stan the benefit of the doubt is wrong. This article assumes that Stan is guilty of something wrong, but then fails to provide any evidence of that wrongdoing. Are you asking me to defend what someone did or did not do 25+ years ago? I don't want that job. However, for a web site that is supposed to be out highlighting what is positive in comics, I find it an interesting choice to level charges against one of the most influential people in the medium without this video offering any evidence of the claim. The 20/20 piece was interesting and worth posting on its own merits... I guess I don't understand how the video evidences the narrative that "Stan is taking credit where he shouldn't". I don't equate not trashing him publicly on often repeated charges based on this video with a free pass.
November 27, 2012 2:29 pm Is it cool to pile on Stan every single time Stan doesn't mention Jack when talking about what he did? Do you think Stan edited this piece or did 20/20? Do you think the whole point of the 20/20 piece was to establish who invented which character or merely to present an insiders look into Marvel comics? BTW, they didn't mention Joe Simon or any other influential writer or artist either.
September 24, 2012 6:44 pm BQ: Heading to MorrisonCon - any other iFanboys heading out? First round is on me.
August 22, 2012 5:53 pm My shop in San Jose, CA didn't receive any copies either...
June 4, 2012 2:28 pm Ya, thinking about that run... it really was bad. Stomach turning bad. It really killed my love of the x-men, and to be honest, that love never came back the same way. What was once seen cannot be unseen.
June 4, 2012 2:22 pm I had been reading X-Men for about 20 years more or less continuously, and Austen's run caused me to not only stop reading X-men, but give up on comics for 5 years. I am not saying his run was objectively bad, but for me, it really was an endurance test that I eventually failed.