Boycott the Avengers?
A Slate writer discusses why Marvel's troubled history with artists has led him to boycott the upcoming project, despite his love for Mr. Whedon.
It's an inflammatory-sounding title, but the article itself is fairly well-reasoned, even if I have strong objections to his points. Interesting for anyone who doesn't already know about the Kirby/Lee/Marvel debate.
February 08 2012
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Chris Oz | February 08, 14:11 CET
pamoreno | February 08, 14:13 CET
sumogrip | February 08, 14:13 CET
What does everyone here think?
embers | February 08, 14:23 CET
sumogrip | February 08, 14:27 CET
Dana5140 | February 08, 15:00 CET
However, my love of Joss Whedon (and, to a lesser extent, superheroes) means that there is nothing that will keep me from seeing that movie on opening night.
Giles_314 | February 08, 15:34 CET
IrrationaliTV | February 08, 15:37 CET
That said, I'm not boycotting Avengers. These characters have become much bigger than the artists (or the company) that created them. And yes, Kirby and his family have a legitimate gripe against Marvel, but our going to see the movie doesn't hurt him or his family. To the contrary, I'm going to see this movie in part because Kirby's work made me love these characters. I think that every audience member who can say that is in some sense honoring his memory by watching them brought to life on screen.
I am curious what other Whedonesquers think of this issue though. I think it has interesting parallels to the controversy surrounding the Buffy movie redux, which prompted violent reactions from some.
[ edited by Squishy on 2012-02-09 00:46 ]
Squishy | February 08, 15:42 CET
It's obvious that Kirby got a raw deal and yes, his family should sue (or is in the process of suing?) for compensation, and Marvel is not the pinnacle of purity of goodness but a corporation with ruthless business tactics. If Kirby's family can get any extra money out of Marvel/Disney after The Avengers movie comes out, I'll cheer for them. That's the extent of my feelings; I doubt whether a boycott will do anything besides deprive me enjoying one of my favorite artist's work on the big screen.
And I was planning on boycotting the Joss-less BtVS movie not for ethical reasons but for artistic ones. I can't imagine a great BtVS feature made without Joss's direct input. Yet if I was wrong and they made a great Buffy movie without Joss, I'd probably go see it.
dottikin | February 08, 16:21 CET
I heart me some superhero, and I heart me some Joss! What could go wrong?
Amarie | February 08, 17:09 CET
As to the topic at hand, Jack Kirby passed away in 1994. Even if his family were to be awarded the entire company, it wouldn't benefit him in the slightest. I just can't bring myself to feel bad for a bunch of people who haven't done anything to deserve all this money that they claim should be theirs. If Kirby were still alive, it might be a different story.
EddieBuck | February 08, 17:55 CET
Squishy | February 08, 18:12 CET
Now, recently minted bazillionaire Stan Lee could certainly have done the right thing by Kirby's family...and open himself up to an onslaught of lawsuits from other prior employees. I don't know the in-depth story of Marvel's foundation, but the sad fact of the matter for the Kirbys is that Lee appears to have been the much more savvy businessman as the company grew. Doesn't make it right, but it does make it so.
MrArg | February 08, 19:18 CET
There's little question that Marvel treated Kirby with special contempt. For anyone interested in greater insight into this issue, I'd encourage you to view this article:
http://archives.tcj.com/aa02ss/n_marvel.html
To some extent I can understand those who think that this matter is less important now that Kirby, and perhaps his wife, are no longer with us. But the chief problem there (imo) is that such thinking encourages these large corporations to simply litigate such matters for as long as possible, in order to wait for such litigants to die.
I, of course, have nothing against Whedon or any of the cast or crew involved in this production. But the closer that I come to this film's release, the more that I see that I just can't find it in me to summon up much interest in it. The same was true of previous Marvel films, and is due in part to this matter, and in part to the companies' current business practices which, while not illegal (afaik), are still in many cases more than a little disappointing.
I am very much looking forward to "The Cabin in the Woods", "Much Ado About Nothing", "In Your Eyes" and all the other projects that the future will bring for Joss and all those who have worked with him here and before. I have little doubt that many other people will see this movie, and hopefully they will be entertained enough to seek out some of his other projects. Good luck to all the individuals involved.
Risch22 | February 08, 19:29 CET
The big problem occurs because "The Marvel Method" is just so...odd. It is really is more collaborative than the "normal way." But as Stan Lee has said, he was also writing stories for Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, and later Gene Colan and John Romita all at the same time. Which kept all of them working. Lee fully admits that the stories were better because of the artists. Marvel history is just...messy. (The wikipedia entry is rather sterilized.)
Unfortunately, the comics industry has a long history of the creatives getting screwed, wonky contracts, strong arm tactics, etc. Kirby was far from the first and he won't be the last. Stuff still goes on.
It won't help Kirby, who's dead, but you can help out other Golden and Silver Age creators. Check out The Hero Initiative. It is a non-profit group that tries to give back to those of the Golden and Silver Age comic creators who may be in dire straits with medical and financial needs.
BreathesStory | February 08, 19:31 CET
sumogrip | February 08, 20:49 CET
That said, I doubt a public shaming will change Marvel/Disney's mind and give anything to the Kirby estate, particularly when they are in the middle of a high profile legal battle where the payout could be from the millions to billions of dollars.
If people want to boycott as a moral position, that is definitely worthy, but I don't think even if there is a huge outpouring of support that Marvel/Disney will give the Kirby estate anything that they are not mandated in court.
It's really quite unfortunate that the comic book industry works this way. Even Joss has experienced that working at Marvel, where his Astonishing X-men storyline was used for X-men 3. However, Joss didn't get any compensation or credit for it. Not that Joss is hurting for cash and was not screwed over like Kirby was, but unfortunately it's everywhere in the industry.
Matt_Fabb | February 08, 20:51 CET
I don't know how much sense this does make.
Yet, injustice and exploitation in our world of business should genarally be fought and minimized.
cleveland | February 08, 21:31 CET
Mindwipe | February 08, 22:49 CET
Risch22 | February 08, 23:42 CET
Skytteflickan88 | February 09, 00:28 CET
Simon | February 09, 01:04 CET
Mitholas | February 09, 06:29 CET
If you can't say something nice, probably best to let it lie.
zeitgeist | February 09, 07:09 CET
The "summary" you're looking for is this, the early comics companies hired young artists and writers for their books and paid them a flat fee. This was fine while comics were being sold in the 30s through the 70s when comics were a throw-away item. Today, those characters are worth billions. Many of the original creators and their heirs have sued these now-giant comic companies for monies they feel they are owed despite the original agreements which said they were strictly "work for hire."
The creators of superman (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) got money after the fact--as someone mentioned above--by shaming DC Comics on a whirlwind media tour. The creator of Batman's family has been in a similar battle for years. Around the time of the Superman compensation deal, I remember Stan Lee (co-creator of many huge franchise characters) was "given" a pension from Marvel comics (and some "editor emeritus" title) of $1,000,000/year. Hardly enough when you consider the Spider-man movies grossed in the billions already...not counting the bed sheets, the kids pajamas and a ton of other products with the webslingers face. Stan gets a million/yr and what does Jack Kirby get from marvel every year? Diddly squat. (And Jack was the other half of the co-creator team on many many characters including the hulk, thor, iron man, the x-men, and the silver surfer)
Basically, the early creators got a bad deal and the normal response from people is the same as it has been in this thread, some think its "too bad for the creators because they made a deal", others think the heirs of these creative giants don't deserve the financial benefits of their parents/grandparents and then there's people like me that feel those early creators should be given a stake in the movies--give them one percent of the gross. Even one tenth of a percent of the gross. Bad laws are changed all the time and if the comics companies would make a big show of it, they would gain much more in PR benefit than the few million the creators would get. (Like Stan Lee's one million dollars a year deal.) If those guys didn't create the characters and write those classic stories, these movies wouldn't exist today to earn those corporations huge money every year. I think they should ignore a bad law and do what's right...clearly they dont have to but its the right thing to do. You dont have to return a bag of money you find on the train either but when you do and find out it was a life savings for some elderly woman that left it there by accident, you know it was the right thing to do.
alexreager | February 09, 08:08 CET
Indeed, far beyond Marvel, DC are continuing their practice of 'shafting' the creative talent. I myself was agast to learn that DC will be releasing a new series of Watchmen comics, agains the wishes of co-creator Alan Moore.
Indeed, unlike Jack Kirby, Alan Moore had been led to believe by DC that after the comics initial run in the late eighties, the copyright to the characters would return to him.
Did this blogger boycot the Watchmen film, that so infuriated the comics creator that he had his name taken off the credits of the film?
And look at Raymond Cusick, who designed the Daleks for the BBC, yet never saw anything from the billions that they have generated for the BBC.
I agree, the estate of Jack Kirby deserves finacial compensation from Marvel. But that is from a moral, not legal, principal. Legally, Marvel owe Jack Krby nothing. He was paid for his efforts at the time.
Big business never works on morality, just how it can legally generate money for the shareholders.
I do think it extremelly unfair to single out one company, Marvel, and one film, The Avengers, when I can point of countless similar incidents.
[ edited by SeanHarry on 2012-02-10 00:38 ]
SeanHarry | February 09, 10:02 CET
It's the business side of Marvel that I have an issue with, not the creative people that produce the comic books, cartoons and movies that I enjoy so much. By boycotting this movie I'd be insulting all the hard work that those guys have put in to making it happen, and I can't imagine that Jack Kirby would support that approach for a second. Especially when the impact I would be making on the success of the movie would be almost unnoticeable. The money guys simply won't care because, as has already been said, only a fraction of the potential audience are aware of Jack Kirby and even less are aware of any legal dispute his family have with Marvel.
So forget boycotting the movie. It won't help the cause and you'll miss a spectacular film for no good reason.
Five Horizons | February 09, 10:05 CET
This is like all of the heat Apple is getting over using Foxconn factories in Shenzhen to produce their gadgets. Nearly EVERY computer/gadget maker you've ever heard of works with Foxconn and most of them don't publish supplier compliance reports, conduct hundreds of supply chain audits, actively use their business to ensure workers rights are honored and threaten to drop suppliers who don't comply. They are the only gadget maker who is a member of the FLA... But guess what? No one cares if you publish a NYTimes piece on Dell or Acer's FAR WORSE track records with this stuff. You make noise about the company that people will read about, regardless of what their record is.
Work-for-hire and related issues have been known and discussed in the comics community for decades; there are charities to ensure that retiring pros can afford to live. No one outside the bubble wanted to talk about this when Marvel was in restructuring for bankruptcy, but now that Marvel films is making money hand over fist, its time to shine the light.
That's not a knock on anyone fighting to bring awareness of these abuses, its just a reminder to be aware that when people want to get attention for a cause, they attack the big dog.
zeitgeist | February 09, 11:16 CET
MrArg | February 09, 11:56 CET
The reality is I can build, or have built a largely abuse-free PC (not entirely, you'd still have to vet every part). I can't buy an abuse free Apple no matter what I do. That's MY issue with Apple. It doesn't make Dell blameless, but I consider it less bad. It's fighting for survival in a way Apple does not.
As for boycotting the Avengers, save it.
As Simon noted, it's just like boycotting a Buffy reboot..It's punishing the wrong people.azzers | February 09, 11:58 CET
Wow, this comment made me sound quite a lot like a zombie. Weird.
Mort | February 09, 12:46 CET
zeitgeist | February 09, 12:54 CET
Sunfire | February 09, 13:28 CET
zeitgeist | February 09, 13:29 CET
Five Horizons | February 09, 13:31 CET
zeitgeist | February 09, 13:32 CET
Oh, and thanks for breaking my steely boycotting resolve, mate! ;)
Five Horizons | February 09, 13:44 CET
zeitgeist | February 09, 13:55 CET
Five Horizons | February 09, 14:34 CET
Mort, mmmmmm brains.
If only Whedonesquers ruled the world...there would be no issues with royalties as the creative people would be paid the most, the studio execs would be the writer lackeys and everything would be hugs and puppies.
alexreager | February 09, 14:40 CET
Five Horizons | February 09, 15:28 CET
http://www.avclub.com/articles/marvel-forces-ghost-rider-creator-to-stop-saying-h,69202/
dottikin | February 10, 16:27 CET