Tag Archives: Disney

Legal Battle Over Marvel Characters…

In the news lately have come articles regarding the heirs of Steve Ditko, Stan Lee, Gene Colon, and others’ moves toward getting control over characters they created for Marvel Comics back in the day… and which they may have the possibility of getting thanks to the passage of time.

Over on Salon.com, Kylie Chung writes about…

Legal battle over copyright to Marvel heroes like Thor & Spidey threaten the future of the MCU

What does this mean to you or I? Not really all that much, I admit, unless of course we are heirs to the estate of some of the creators of the various Marvel characters and/or have financial interests in Disney and their movies.

So, what exactly is happening here?

Well, for many, many years comic book work was considered a “one and done” type deal. You would get your assignment, write and/or draw your story, get it published, it sells (hopefully), and you get your next assignment and so on and so forth.

There wasn’t a sense of permanence to the job. People figured once the current story was published and left the newstands, that was pretty much it and whatever work you did would be forgotten in time.

Only, that didn’t happen.

Sure, it was the case mostly from the early days of comic book work through perhaps the later 1960’s. By the 1970’s there was a healthy collector market which had sprung up and publishing companies realized there was money to be made in reprinting past works. It was a win-win for the publishers: They had already paid for the work so reprinting it was like making free money. They didn’t have to pay the author or artist and whatever was made was gravy.

Certainly back then there was no sense that the characters they had could become billion dollar movie properties.

Here’s the thing: These companies, like the artists and writers, tended to feel the work had little permanence. Some of the contracts might have been lost over time or discarded, though the companies do have a claim over the characters they have continuously published over the decades.

Regardless, the work tended to be “work for hire”, which meant the author/artist was doing the work specifically to sell it to the company and, in theory, they had no rights to the work and/or any new characters they created after this fact.

However, there is a loophole, of sorts, which the above article states: After a certain amount of time, the creator(s) or heirs can request the copyright revert to them, and that is making a company like Marvel pretty nervous… to the point they are proactively suing to ensure they retain copyrights to the various characters in their stable.

There are people who have no sympathy for the creators of these myriad characters. They may say things like “well, they signed the work for hire contract, they knew what they were getting into” but how does one see what’s coming two or three decades down the line?

Artist/writer Jack Kirby essentially created or co-created most of the Marvel characters. Artist /writer Steve Ditko created or co-created -I tend to lean into the former rather than the later, but others may be more willing to give more credit to Stan Lee- what is arguably Marvel’s best known character, Spider-Man.

Both Kirby and Ditko left Marvel Comics in the later 1960’s and both had the same complaints, that Stan Lee -whom many today and thanks to his humorous cameos in various Marvel films have come to view as some kind of saint- was only too willing to take more credit for what was, in Kirby and Ditko’s opinion, their work.

In fact, the rumor is that Ditko left Spider-Man, and Marvel Comics, because he was essentially writing as well as drawing the book and Stan Lee wanted a certain villain, the Green Goblin, to be revealed as a certain character, and Ditko adamantly was against that.

Further, it is pretty well known today that Jack Kirby created the character of the Silver Surfer all on his own. The story goes that one day Kirby delivered the pages to the latest Fantastic Four issue and on it was the first appearance of the Silver Surfer and Stan Lee, confused as to the character on the page, asked who that was!

Again, though, Kirby and Lee would butt heads about, among other things, the story of the Silver Surfer and Kirby eventually left the company for, among other things, because Lee wanted his story to go in one direction and Kirby wasn’t interested in going that way. This apparently occurred in other books as well.

Now, despite what I’ve just written above, I don’t feel Stan Lee is some kind of terrible villain.

What I do believe is that he was very willing to take more credit for his work than he should have and that doesn’t reflect all that well on him.

Having said that, its not like he did nothing to make Marvel Comics the juggernaut it became. He wrote some great dialogue and captions to many of the comics he worked on even if there might be a question as to how involved in the stories he was, especially when Marvel Comics really started to take off and many more books were released each month. Further, he was terrific as a gushing fan for the product, hyping it up and creating a sense of fun in the various books which was lacking in rival DC at the time.

Ultimately, though, I side with the artists and writers of the works. They created wonderful stories and now we have people in movie studios picking over their years of hard work, making adaptations (as a writer, trust me, its easier to adapt a story already made versus coming up with something reasonably original), and then making a bundle for work while the original creators or their estates/heirs get next to nothing.

Sadly, this is nothing new.

Back in the 1970’s and when Warner Brothers was in the process of making a big budget Superman film, artist/writer Neal Adams shamed DC comics/Warners into giving monies to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of the character, who by that point were elderly and in need of the help.

It’s a shame and I hope that Marvel/Disney, rather than sticking to suing and countersuing, instead become a little more generous to those whose work they’re now using to make their millions… and billions.

Too big…?

Over at Hollywoodreporter.com, Georg Szalai and Paul Bond have an article which notes:

Disney Closes Fox Deal, Creating Global Content Powerhouse

I’m not surprised by these developments. Disney has been on a roll of late, making buckets of money on their parks, their movies, and their TV shows. When Disney bought up Marvel Comics, they went on a further roll with the various Marvel Universe films featuring Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor.

Though Disney owned the characters published through Marvel Comics, it was Fox which had the rights to making movies featuring what were arguably the most prominent Marvel Comics characters: Spider-Man, X-Men, and The Fantastic Four.

Now, I’m not suggesting the only reason Disney targeted buying up Fox was to get all the Marvel characters’ movie rights under one umbrella, but given some of the loads o’ cash these films make, it had to be a consideration.

So, for those who long to see an Avengers vs. X-Men film, it looks like it could well be on the horizon.

On various boards, people who are fans of Disney’s Marvel films are happy for this possibility, but I’m rather disturbed by the whole thing.

Why?

Because we seem to be reaching a point these days where there exist one or two or three companies that control virtually all the entertainment being fed to us.

AT&T recently purchased Warner Brothers. Now Disney owns Fox.

I worry when we reach a point where there are so few companies responsible for so much. Will our entertainment get more and more bland?

I suppose.

I suppose its also possible that new, independent artists can catch fire, but given the size of the giants out there, how long before their concepts/ideas are bought out as well?

There is also this, found in the Disney/Fox article:

Disney has promised $2 billion in cost savings from the Fox takeover, with some in the industry expecting between 4,000-10,000 layoffs.

Ouch.

Disney and Fox

A few days back it was announced that Disney and Fox shareholders approved a deal in which Disney would essentially buy up Fox.  (You can read the New York Times article about this here).

For those into movies like I am, this means that Disney now owns pretty much ALL the Marvel Movie properties.  For those unaware, Marvel Comics was in trouble in the 1970’s and going into the 1980’s and wound up selling the rights to many of their then biggest properties (Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, X-Men) to keep afloat.

When Marvel’s magical movie win streak started, they had the rights to what were considered “ancillary” characters but not the “big” ones like those I mentioned above.  Yet the movies were good and audiences loved them and they made a ton of money and, quite suddenly, “ancillary” characters like Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, etc. became BIG characters.

And yet there was, I strongly suspect, a desire to have all the major characters and their various rights (film, TV, etc.) to be under one house.

Understand, I’m not saying the only reason Disney bought up Fox was to get their hands on the Marvel movie properties they own (X-Men, Fantastic Four, and the characters tied in to them.  Spider-Man’s film rights are owned by Sony and they have come into an agreement with Disney to allow them to make movies with the character).

But it certainly must have been at least one reason they were interested in this purchase.

Some comic book fans are elated at the prospect of seeing all the Marvel characters interact on film, especially if the quality of the films are on the level of the current Marvel works.

Me?

I guess it could be fun and all, but…

We have another massive media company becoming all the more massive.  Recently, AT&T bought Warner Brothers.  Now Disney buys Fox.

I’m going to be blunt about this: It makes me uncomfortable.

Success is wonderful.  Monopolies, less so.

As a consumer, one should welcome competition among companies.  Competition makes companies innovate, effectively try to “one up” their competition.  The result is better product often at lower prices.  A win-win for consumers.

But with monopolies, there are far less competitors.  Further, do you want to live in a world where all your entertainment is provided by only a select few companies?  I can’t help but think it will mean less variety.  And will a “wholesome” company like Disney continue to release R-Rated Deadpool type films, or will they shut that down?

As I said, it bothers me, though given the era we’re living in and unless we have a serious look by politicians into the current monopolistic business practices we’re seeing, it likely won’t change.

Disney buying up most of Fox Entertainment…

Woke up today to the news that Disney is, as the headline right above states, buying up most of Fox Entertainment’s assets.  The link below is to a CNN article written by Hadas Gold and Charles Riley concerning that big bit of news…

Disney is buying most of 21st Century Fox for $52.4 Billion

To comic book/movie geeks like me, this means that Disney, who owns Marvel Comics and the characters, nonetheless did not have the right to make movies using the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and only until recently, Spider-Man, even though those characters and the ancillary characters around them were part of the Marvel Comics stable.

Why?

Because there was a time, believe it or not, when Marvel Comics wasn’t doing all that well financially and the rights to the movie versions of these properties were sold to what eventually became 21st Century Fox.  These properties, ironically enough, were THE most popular properties in the Marvel stable, so when the Marvel films first started coming out, they were forced to use “lesser” characters at first.

Sure, people knew the Hulk and Captain America, but Iron Man wasn’t a big character.  Thor, also quite well known in comic book circles, was hardly a Marvel “A” lister.  So too the Guardians of the Galaxy.

But the movies were successful beyond anyone’s dreams and, voila, the Marvel films were hot hot hot and when Disney purchased them, lock, stock, and barrel, they continued the success… and even managed to procure the use of Spider-Man.

I suspect that small opening allowed Disney to continue their negotiations with Fox and, today, it looks like we’ve come to the logical conclusion.

So, now what?

Will we see the Fantastic Four and X-Men finally come into the Marvel Universe?

I strongly suspect we will.

And… it kinda depresses me.

Look, its nice that the Marvel properties, both in print and in theaters, are now going to be under one umbrella.  The properties should be together as they always were in print.

However…

Is it me or are we rapidly coming to the point where our entire lives are going to be influenced by only a handful of companies?

Think about it: In entertainment Disney, Warner Brothers, and Sony are a trio of incredibly big and influential companies.  Fox was, too, but now Fox is part of Disney.

I could go on with other companies, such as Amazon and Apple and Samsung and Microsoft and… the list sure seems to get smaller and smaller, no?

One other thing: Fox owns the rights to the original cut of Star Wars (1977).  Now, supposedly George Lucas, when he sold his Star Wars properties, put a clause in there nixing any release of the original cut of the film.

But now Disney actually owns that cut (again, this was like the Marvel deal, while Disney owns the Star Wars properties, Fox had the rights to the original theatrical version of the original film).

The big question: Will they finally release it?

Politically correct Disney

This post originally appeared in November of 2011.

When you have a company that primarily caters to younger audiences, it isn’t too terribly surprising the people behind the scenes make sure the material presented to these young people is in no way controversial.  There is added difficulty when your company also happens to have existed for many, many years, and what might have been acceptable at one time becomes unacceptable in another.

Of the many films produced by Walt Disney Studios, the one you cannot get your hands on is an official release of Song of the South.  This despite the fact that the film features one of the more recognizable Disney songs ever created (Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah) and has a ride (Splash Mountain) based on the animated segments in the film.  It is the non-animated segments, however, that are -to put it mildly- a source of controversy given the depiction of African Americans in post-Civil War times.  But the movie isn’t a unique example of Disney studios going back and changing things that may be, in these modern times, deemed at best “touchy” and at worst “offensive”.

I’ve been going to Walt Disney World near Orlando for years, and it is curious to note the subtle and not so subtle changes to some of their rides.  The 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage ride has been completely done away with.  Two others have featured some notable changes.

The first is the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.  With the success of the movie franchise, audiences have witnessed the appearance of an animatronic version of Capt. Jack Sparrow.  His presence isn’t all that bad, but it does change the focus of the ride from one of amorphous idealized pirates to a focus more in line with the movies.  What I found most intriguing was the way they changed one of the ride’s more elaborate jokes.  After we pass the “women’s” market (where a pirate group is selling women off to leering pirates, the joke being that the current woman on sale, a fat one, is of no interest in the buyers.  They have their eyes on the next woman in line, who is a knockout.  The way things are going, I suspect this particular joke won’t remain in the ride much longer!), we come upon a besieged town.  Originally the joke presented here was that we see one pirate chasing a woman around her house.  Then another doing the same.  When we get to the third house, however, the woman is far larger than the pirate and, instead of him chasing her, she’s chasing him around the house, swinging her broom at his head!

This joke was completely killed off for obvious reasons.  After all, what are the pirates doing chasing the women?  Because they are hungry and want the women to make them some breakfast or lunch?  Are they cold and want the women to fetch them a warm drink?

Clearly, this is not the case.  In fact, the “joke” presented here is that these women are in the process of being assaulted.  Once the pirates “catch” them, what follows can only be one thing.  The people behind the scenes at Disney, I’m quite certain, decided this “joke” was a little too risqué and nixed it.  Now, the first house has a pair of pirates running around in circles while carrying a (no doubt pilfered) treasure chest.  The second house has (I believe) a woman chasing away a pirate, and the third has the same big woman chasing a pirate.  The joke is officially expunged.

This last time I went to Walt Disney World, I noted another change.  If you go to the Haunted Mansion ride, in the preamble, you’re “locked” in a room with your fellow park attendees and listen as the narrator talks about the mansion.  The walls seem to move, and the lower parts of painted pictures reveal humorous “hidden” bottoms containing macabre jokes.  Toward the end of this segment, the narrator notes that the audience is trapped in a room with no doors or windows.  How, he wonders, are we to find a way out?  Our narrator then states that in a room without doors or windows, there is only one way out.  Then, you hear a scream and lightning reveals a hidden attic above us, showing…not much.

At least now.

Yes, there’s the sound of crashing and you see a ragged figure above you, but the whole conclusion to the narration makes little sense.  Why?  Because the original “way out” was clipped.  For the original “way out” was…suicide.

When the narrator says there is a way out, originally when you heard the screams and the lightning flashes illuminated the room above you, the ragged figure you saw was clearly hanging from her neck on a rope.  The implication was that in a room with no exit, the only exit is to kill yourself.  Not the most ideal of “jokes” to present little kids!  Now, the ragged figure does not sway on any rope, but is immobile, making the ending of this part of the ride rather confusing (although, granted, far more politically correct than showing the ragged remains of some poor forgotten soul who has committed suicide!).

Anyway, if you’re interested in more changes (some dealing with far less controversial material within the parks), I found this pretty interesting website that details some of those people have noted:

http://www.wdwradio.com/forums/i-remember-lost-attractions-wdw-more/18772-attraction-changes-over-years.html