Walt Disney's Marvelman!
Will Dockery
least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
more the Disney way.
Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
childbirth scene?
Questions... and more questions...
YKW (ad hoc)
858c-b0b...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> Yes, I often wonder what the future holds for Marvelman... but at
> least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
>
> Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> more the Disney way.
That would work for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes as an intro, the way
the 1950s stories were used in the revival.
> Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> childbirth scene?
I think Peter David has at least put an entry into that last sweepstakes.
> Questions... and more questions...
>
Disney made BLINDNESS. Disney made THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS. Disney
distributed APOCALYPTO. Disney has made and released horror on all kinds
of levels. I don't think the material in the MM revival would make the
Mouse think twice. It would certainly be released through either
Touchstone or, more likely, Miramax, but I can see it going through
largely as-is, though it'd face serious time-compression.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
Will Dockery
> Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote in news:16c9835e-3e74-4be5-
> 858c-b0b08d4fc...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Yes, I often wonder what the future holds for Marvelman... but at
> > least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
>
> > Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> > a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> > more the Disney way.
>
> That would work for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes as an intro, the way
> the 1950s stories were used in the revival.
>
> > Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> > horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> > or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> > childbirth scene?
>
> I think Peter David has at least put an entry into that last sweepstakes.
Not familiar with that... if it goes as far at the Miracleman "birth
scene", that's really notable.
> > Questions... and more questions...
>
> Disney made BLINDNESS. Disney made THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS. Disney
> distributed APOCALYPTO. Disney has made and released horror on all kinds
> of levels. I don't think the material in the MM revival would make the
> Mouse think twice. It would certainly be released through either
> Touchstone or, more likely, Miramax, but I can see it going through
> largely as-is, though it'd face serious time-compression.
Ah, okay, so my perception of what "Walt Disney" signifies is
obviously not up-to-date... that's a good thing in the case of
Marvelman, reprints and new material, then.
--
"Silver Blazing Sun" written by Will Dockery & Brian Mallard,
performed by The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-RTkMkQJo
Unknown
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaa217c3-864f-4514...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:31 pm, "YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyMcNut...@foxnews.com> wrote:
> Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote in news:16c9835e-3e74-4be5-
> 858c-b0b08d4fc...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Yes, I often wonder what the future holds for Marvelman... but at
> > least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
>
> > Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> > a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> > more the Disney way.
>
> That would work for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes as an intro, the way
> the 1950s stories were used in the revival.
>
> > Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> > horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> > or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> > childbirth scene?
>
> I think Peter David has at least put an entry into that last sweepstakes.
> Not familiar with that... if it goes as far at the Miracleman "birth
scene", that's really notable.
It's apples and oranges. Miracleman's birth scene was graphic. Peter
David's was noteworthy in a storytelling way.
> > Questions... and more questions...
>
> Disney made BLINDNESS. Disney made THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS. Disney
> distributed APOCALYPTO. Disney has made and released horror on all kinds
> of levels. I don't think the material in the MM revival would make the
> Mouse think twice. It would certainly be released through either
> Touchstone or, more likely, Miramax, but I can see it going through
> largely as-is, though it'd face serious time-compression.
> Ah, okay, so my perception of what "Walt Disney" signifies is
obviously not up-to-date... that's a good thing in the case of
Marvelman, reprints and new material, then.
Yeah, if Marvel goes that route. Do we know what Marvel's plans for the
character are yet?
Will Dockery
All that I've noticed so far was mention of Marvel reprinting the
1950s Mick Anglo stories, and of course the t-shirt and the one poster-
type drawing.
Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be going
to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me that Marvel
would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name on them, of
course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing his story...
but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with Marvelman/
Miracleman.
Will Dockery
> "Will Dockery" wrote:
>
>
> obviously not up-to-date... that's a good thing in the case of
> Marvelman, reprints and new material, then.
>
> Yeah, if Marvel goes that route. Do we know what Marvel's plans for the
> character are yet?
I just came across this item, this morning:
Classic Marvelman will appear from Marvel
"The question on comic fans' lips since Marvel announced their
purchase of Marvelman at San Diego Comic-Con has finally been
answered: Yes, they will be reprinting Alan Moore's classic pre-
Watchmen run on the character. Moore's revival of the 1950s Captain
Marvel rip-off has long been considered a lost part of comics history;
Moore's first deconstruction of the superhero genre, Marvelman -
renamed Miracleman for its American publication and conclusion,
ironically after legal threats from Marvel Comics - launched in the
pages of British anthology Warrior in 1982, and offered ideas that
Moore would later re-address (and, in the case of Promethea and some
of his later America's Best Comics line, refute) in more famous books
like Watchmen..."
http://io9.com/5352771/classic-marvelman-will-appear-from-marvel
PatONeill
I'm amazed here that no one has talked at all about the origins of
Mick Anglo's character. Basically, Mick Anglo's company in the 1950s
had reprint rights to Fawcett's Captain Marvel in the UK. When Fawcett
shut down production, that company decided NOT to simply stop doing CM
stories but to "continue" them, simply by altering the lead character
in Marvelman, with a similar costume (absent a cape) and supporting
cast. (Though, surprisingly, they recast Mary Marvel in a male role--I
guess they thought it would be more appealing to their sub-teen male
audience. Imagine what Moore might have done with a female character
in HIS Marvelman series. I shudder at the thought.)
That all said, I wonder if DC ever considered taking legal action,
since the whole thing began as a plagiaristic, illegal, copyright- and
trademark-violating rip-off of material they now own.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraclewoman
> That all said, I wonder if DC ever considered taking legal action,
> since the whole thing began as a plagiaristic, illegal, copyright- and
> trademark-violating rip-off of material they now own.
More to the point, a plageristic rip-off of material which, at the time,
they had successfully sued for being a plageristic rip-off...
(I don't think trademark-violating is right, though; the whole point of
having a "new" character was that Angelo carefully peeled off all the
trademarks.)
In the 50s, I suspect L. Miller & Son were simply beneath DC's radar.
When Moore brought Marvelman back, he did it by basically changing
*everything* (including the origin), so his version of character was less
of a rip-off.
(Also, DC seem to have lost interest in suing people, especially Moore,
for blatant rip-offs of their characters. Look at Supreme.)
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Will Dockery
Yes, this has been discussed elsewhere, and is a fascinating
situation... it almost seems like DC would have kind have had a right
to the character from the start, or at the time they acquired Captain
Marvel. But I suppose that in the early 1970s, an English superhero
clearly derived from CM was just really off the radar for DC... in
fact, Marvelman seems to have not been noticed at all here in the
United States... I know I'd never heard anything about him until at
least 1984 or so, when the plan to bring the stories over here was
announced.
By the way, get it while you can for obvious reasons, don't know how
long Marvel/Disney will allow it (I hate to bring it up for that
reason but it is just one of those too good to be true or to keep
quiet about things) but complete color scans of the entire Miracleman
are available online at:
whoswhoz
It would be nice if that interview actually said that, but all it says
it that Alan Moore won't stand in the way of Neil Gaiman's
negotitations with Marvel.
Lots of lawyers still need to meet before anything appears on a
schedule anywhere.
Will Dockery
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>
Yes, after I had my first cup of coffee, and had posted this, it
became obvious to me that this was just Alan Moore talking, and says
nothing at all about what Marvel may actually do, or even intend to
do.
We're still at that point that I know it was stated -I think at the
first announcement last month- that there would be reprints of the
Mick Anglo material from the 1950s, and the one new drawing of MM was
using that older design, not the Miracleman redesign. That's really
all we can count on seeing, so far... if even that.
Tim Turnip
I think it's fairly clear that Marvel will want to reprint the Moore
series first and foremost, as that will be the biggest cash cow out of
the whole set; in fact Moore wouldn't even be part of the conversation
if all Marvel wanted to do was reprint some old Mick Anglo stories
before relaunching the character on their own (which they will also
undoubtedly attempt to do).
Whoswhoz is probably right in that it's too early to put in orders for
a Classic (Moore/Gaiman) Marvelman TPB and io9.com seems to have
jumped the gun a little with the wording in their story. But there
wouldn't be any discussion of Moore removing his name from anything if
if it's not his stories we were talking about. Presumably there will
still be legalities to work out with the artists, but it'd be nice to
see those worked out soon -- for the Anglos' sake if not comics fandom
overall.
Duggy
I've always felt that was a missing piece of the discussion...
I just need a quick clarification here... did they take CM strips and
re-ink them or did they take the concepts create totally new strips?
===
= DUG.
===
PatONeill
It was all new material.
John Duncan Yoyo
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be going
>to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me that Marvel
>would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name on them, of
>course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing his story...
>but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with Marvelman/
>Miracleman.
Do they need to take his name off? He did it as work for hire right?
-
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Local residents upset with the current weather pattern are encouraged to walk outside
their homes and shake their fists at the sky while exclaiming, "I am displeased!"
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>
> >Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be going
> >to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me that Marvel
> >would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name on them, of
> >course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing his story...
> >but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with Marvelman/
> >Miracleman.
>
> Do they need to take his name off? He did it as work for hire right?
I think there was a "creator owned" thing about Marvelman/Miracleman,
but I forgot, or don't know, the details.
The one memory I have of this happening was when Jim Steranko wanted
his name left off of an X-Men story he drew back around 1969, and the
credits read "Art by Do we really have to tell you?"... they didn't,
of course, but I never found out why Steranko wanted his name removed.
Any scholars out there happen to know anything about this?
--
"Silver Blazing Sun" written by Will Dockery & Brian Mallard,
performed by The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-RTkMkQJo
> -
PatONeill
>
> >Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be going
> >to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me that Marvel
> >would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name on them, of
> >course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing his story...
> >but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with Marvelman/
> >Miracleman.
>
> Do they need to take his name off? He did it as work for hire right?
> -
Copyright works VERY differently in the UK. Essentially there's no
such thing as work for hire over there, at least not in the sense the
US has it.
As an example: Although the TV series Doctor Who was owned completely
by the BBC, the producers could not use the Daleks--created by Terry
Nation for the show--without his permission (at least until the 1990s
when the BBC negotiated full ownership of them). Same for another
frequent Who foe, the Cybermen, and their creator. I assume similar
rules apply to any characters or concepts that Moore added to the Mick
Anglo Marvelman.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Sep 8, 11:11�pm, John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-y...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>>
>> <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be
>> >going to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me
>> >that Marvel would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name
>> >on them, of course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing
>> >his story... but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with
>> >Marvelman/ Miracleman.
>>
>> Do they need to take his name off? �He did it as work for hire right?
>
> I think there was a "creator owned" thing about Marvelman/Miracleman,
> but I forgot, or don't know, the details.
>
> The one memory I have of this happening was when Jim Steranko wanted
> his name left off of an X-Men story he drew back around 1969, and the
> credits read "Art by Do we really have to tell you?"... they didn't,
> of course, but I never found out why Steranko wanted his name removed.
> Any scholars out there happen to know anything about this?
I thought there might be something about it at www.thexaxis.com, but Paul
just comments "And since the splash page shows the cast standing in front
of a towering machine with the story title written on the side under an
exaggerated Magneto silhouette... no, they probably don't", without
mentioning if there was any reason *why* they didn't.
ISTR there was a Captain America story that Mark Waid wanted his name
removed from because, well, it wasn't the story he'd written. IIRC,
Marvel agreed to do this, and then didn't...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I don't know how it works exactly, but the Daleks are an exception (and the
Nation Estate does still co-own them; in 2004 there was a moment of panic
when it looked like the BBC weren't going to get permission to use them in
the new series). Kit Pedlar and Gerry Davies *didn't* co-own the Cybermen,
although in the new series they get a credit on Cyberman episodes (similar
to DC's "Superman created by Seigel and Shuster"), and I think all other
Doctor Who monsters are wholly owned by the BBC.
I'm not sure why this is the case; Wikipedia suggests Nation simply had a
*very* good agent.
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On 09 Sep 2009, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 11:11 pm, John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-y...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Since they own the character, and Alan Moore doesn't seem to be
> >> >going to stand in the way of it, it would seem pretty sure to me
> >> >that Marvel would want to reprint the Moore store, without his name
> >> >on them, of course. And Gaiman seems pretty interested in finishing
> >> >his story... but, true, nothing is certain what Marvel will do with
> >> >Marvelman/ Miracleman.
>
> >> Do they need to take his name off? He did it as work for hire right?
>
> > I think there was a "creator owned" thing about Marvelman/Miracleman,
> > but I forgot, or don't know, the details.
>
> > The one memory I have of this happening was when Jim Steranko wanted
> > his name left off of an X-Men story he drew back around 1969, and the
> > credits read "Art by Do we really have to tell you?"... they didn't,
> > of course, but I never found out why Steranko wanted his name removed.
> > Any scholars out there happen to know anything about this?
>
> just comments "And since the splash page shows the cast standing in front
> of a towering machine with the story title written on the side under an
> exaggerated Magneto silhouette... no, they probably don't", without
> mentioning if there was any reason *why* they didn't.
Well, I did get this Steranko quote, and a look at the gorgeous cover
of... Marvel Girl (no, on second glance I think that's a character
named Lilith or something, I haven't read the issue in about 40
years!) all in green tones:
http://inkdestroyedmybrush.blogspot.com/2007/10/quick-hits-steranko-and-x-men-logo.html
Excerpted froma comic book resources article also mentioned in todd
klien's blog): Jim Steranko's comments about taking on the X-Men book,
and the design for the now-famous X-Men logo:
“At first, I didn’t want to work on the X-Men because of all the five-
sided panels. I couldn’t relate to the characters, I didn’t know how
to make it work, so I asked to work incognito on the book. But I
signed my name to my first three covers. And that logo they had was
awful. Logos were trademarked, but they let me redesign it, just to
get rid of that awful logo. I never got paid for it.” -Jim Steranko
--
"Silver Blazing Sun" written by Will Dockery & Brian Mallard,
performed by The Shadowville All-Stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-RTkMkQJo
Tim Turnip
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, I did get this Steranko quote, and a look at the gorgeous cover
>of... Marvel Girl (no, on second glance I think that's a character
>named Lilith or something, I haven't read the issue in about 40
>years!) all in green tones:
>
>http://inkdestroyedmybrush.blogspot.com/2007/10/quick-hits-steranko-and-x-men-logo.html
Huh -- I'd always assumed that was Lorna just because of all the
green. Beautiful cover, though. (And with no distracting blurbs or
word balloons, quite ahead of its time...)
William George Ferguson
It is Lorna. X-Men #49-#52 was the origin of Lorna Dane. Lorna first
appeared in #49 and 'Erik the Red' first appeared in #51.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Will Dockery
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>
> >Well, I did get this Steranko quote, and a look at the gorgeous cover
> >of... Marvel Girl (no, on second glance I think that's a character
> >named Lilith or something, I haven't read the issue in about 40
> >years!) all in green tones:
>
>
> Huh -- I'd always assumed that was Lorna just because of all the
> green. Beautiful cover, though. (And with no distracting blurbs or
> word balloons, quite ahead of its time...)
Lorna, yeah, that was her name... the Lilith character I remember now
was one of Bob Haney's new "with it" Teen Titans, when they grey their
hair out and stopped wearing costumes. I have no idea how the two got
blended in my 30-something years since reading the comics...
John Duncan Yoyo
<daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
K-9 is in the same sort of position. The creator has been trying to
make a K-9 show for years. This kept him out of the Sarah Jane
Adventures although I think he may have appeared once or twice in the
background.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Oh, yes, I'd forgotten about K9. Apparently, now that the K9 series is
actually made, Bob Baker says he can appear in Sarah Jane properly.
Will Dockery
Mick Anglo caught that CC Beck feel pretty well, I thought, and the
idea was to keep giving the kids as close a product to Captain Marvel
and friends as possible. It is kind of weird that rather than creating
an ersatz Mary Marvel they turned her character into yet another
little boy.
Which brings me to something I've been wondering, speaking of female
Marvels, I wonder how the fully created by Moore Miraclewoman will fit
in to the future. She was created after the name change, so she's
always been Miraclewoman. Maybe she could remain so?
Just something else to wildly speculate on at this early stage, of
course.
--
"Henry, it has been a pleasure collaborating and performing with you
over the years, we did some good work, had a good run of songs and
hope to someday work with you again. Good luck to you, my friend!" -
Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Tim Turnip
Or she could become a new Ms. Marvel... :)
Will Dockery
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:52:57 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>
Cool enough, but it sure would be nice to have one small nod to the
Age of Miracles...
Tim Turnip
Well, maybe they'll throw that old FF villain the Miracle Man at
them...
Duggy
Then, as I see it DC has very little to stand on... a copy of a copy
that they have let go for decades...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> As an example: Although the TV series Doctor Who was owned completely
> by the BBC, the producers could not use the Daleks--created by Terry
> Nation for the show--without his permission (at least until the 1990s
> when the BBC negotiated full ownership of them).
Which lead to repeats in Australia leaving out all but the first
Daleks story and one story with a single shot of a Dalek.
> Same for another
> frequent Who foe, the Cybermen, and their creator.
Which also applies to recent creations such as Bennie from Virgin's
New Adventures and Faction Paradox which got there own non-BBC spin-
offs.
> I assume similar
> rules apply to any characters or concepts that Moore added to the Mick
> Anglo Marvelman.
Was that an English thing or a BBC thing or a Doctor Who contract
thing?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> K-9 is in the same sort of position. The creator has been trying to
> make a K-9 show for years. This kept him out of the Sarah Jane
> Adventures although I think he may have appeared once or twice in the
> background.
First episode in a cupboard holding back a Supernova or something,
final episode of season 1 he comes out, shoots the baddie, saves the
day and then goes back into the cupbaord...
Sarah Jane's first spin-off was a failed pilot called K-9 & Co... did
the Beeb work with the creator on that one?
He was working on an animated series in the 90s & a computer animated
one recently, both looking pretty bad.
It seems like there's a standing arrangement for the BBC not to have
exclusive rights on Doctor Who characters created by other people.
===
= DUG.
===
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Sep 10, 8:55�pm, John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-y...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> K-9 is in the same sort of position. �The creator has been trying to
>> make a K-9 show for years. �This kept him out of the Sarah Jane
>> Adventures although I think he may have appeared once or twice in the
>> background.
>
> First episode in a cupboard holding back a Supernova or something,
> final episode of season 1 he comes out, shoots the baddie, saves the
> day and then goes back into the cupbaord...
>
> Sarah Jane's first spin-off was a failed pilot called K-9 & Co... did
> the Beeb work with the creator on that one?
I don't know. He certainly wasn't credited.
> He was working on an animated series in the 90s & a computer animated
> one recently, both looking pretty bad.
>
> It seems like there's a standing arrangement for the BBC not to have
> exclusive rights on Doctor Who characters created by other people.
Doesn't seem to be; like I said the Cybermen aren't, and they don't seem
to need the permission of Bob Holmes's family to use the Autons, or the
Sontarans, or Sarah Jane herself. As far as I can make out, it's just the
Daleks and K9.
Characters created for other media are in an even weirder position, since
Benny Summerfield, say, wasn't actually created for the BBC and it's
entirely possible that she was owned by Virgin Publishing (at least until
they went under), in the same way as the Special Executive (created by
Moore for Marvel UK's Doctor Who Magazine, thereby tying it all together)
is the property of Marvel.
Will Dockery
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery
>
Hmmmm... that might be an interesting way to cross Marvelman over to
the Marvel Universe, since there's little doubt that this will happen.
Ken Salgreen
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2009, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 8:55�pm, John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-y...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> K-9 is in the same sort of position. �The creator has been trying to
> >> make a K-9 show for years. �This kept him out of the Sarah Jane
> >> Adventures although I think he may have appeared once or twice in the
> >> background.
> >
> > First episode in a cupboard holding back a Supernova or something,
> > final episode of season 1 he comes out, shoots the baddie, saves the
> > day and then goes back into the cupbaord...
> >
> > Sarah Jane's first spin-off was a failed pilot called K-9 & Co... did
> > the Beeb work with the creator on that one?
>
> I don't know. He certainly wasn't credited.
>
> > He was working on an animated series in the 90s & a computer animated
> > one recently, both looking pretty bad.
> >
> > It seems like there's a standing arrangement for the BBC not to have
> > exclusive rights on Doctor Who characters created by other people.
>
> Doesn't seem to be; like I said the Cybermen aren't,
Cybermen were created - or at least co-created - by Gerry Davis, who
was on the BBC's full-time staff as Dr Who script editor at the time.
IANAL but AIUI there was something in full-time staff's contracts that
rights to their creations went to the BBC, but there was no equivalent
clause in freelancers' contracts.
> and they don't seem
> to need the permission of Bob Holmes's family to use the Autons, or the
> Sontarans, or Sarah Jane herself.
OTOH at least some - if not all - rights for those must rest with Bob
Holmes's family. I thought Bill Baggs negotiated with the family, not
the BBC, to make his own Auton videos and Sontaran CDs.
Maybe the BBC did have to get permission to use the Autons and the
Sontarans in the new Dr Who. We'll probably never know. But if so,
let's just be grateful that his family are less selfish than Nation's.
(I wonder if Sarah Jane was *officially* created by full-time staff
members Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks, even if they did hire Holmes
to write her introduction story. If so, her situation would be
different.)
> As far as I can make out, it's just the
> Daleks and K9.
Don't forget the incident with Quarks. It was arguments about whether
their creators or the BBC owned their rights that drove Henry Lincoln
away from script-writing and into conspiracy theories instead. I
suppose it might be possible that post-Quark, the contracts with
freelancers were drawn up differently giving the BBC a share in the
rights to the characters, to prevent a similar incident happening
again.
OTOH the K9 business would imply that nothing changed. And I vaguely
recall reading that when the last minute decision was made to turn
Nyssa into a regular character, they had to negotiate with her creator
and pay him for the use of her, so the situation was still in place in
the early 80s.
Will Dockery
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Will Dockery wrote:
> >On Sep 10, 8:04 am, Tim Turnip <timtur...@notarealaddress.com> wrote:
> >>On Sep 7, 8:43 pm, PatONeill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 7, 8:40 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> >Mick Anglo caught that CC Beck feel pretty well, I thought, and the
> >> >idea was to keep giving the kids as close a product to Captain Marvel
> >> >and friends as possible. It is kind of weird that rather than creating
> >> >an ersatz Mary Marvel they turned her character into yet another
> >> >little boy.
>
> >> >Which brings me to something I've been wondering, speaking of female
> >> >Marvels, I wonder how the fully created by Moore Miraclewoman will fit
> >> >in to the future. She was created after the name change, so she's
> >> >always been Miraclewoman. Maybe she could remain so?
>
> >> Or she could become a new Ms. Marvel... :)
>
> >Cool enough, but it sure would be nice to have one small nod to the
> >Age of Miracles...
>
> Well, maybe they'll throw that old FF villain the Miracle Man at them...
Ah, I see Marvel's Miracle Man is dead, but that never has stopped
many people from coming back, if Marvel wants them to:
Daibhid Ceanaideach
You're right; the Wikipedia entry for the Auton trilogy says "all story
elements relating to Doctor Who were licensed from their respective
authors". I'm assuming "all elements" means they also got Derrick
Sherwin's permission to use UNIT.
> Maybe the BBC did have to get permission to use the Autons and the
> Sontarans in the new Dr Who. We'll probably never know. But if so,
> let's just be grateful that his family are less selfish than Nation's.
>
> (I wonder if Sarah Jane was *officially* created by full-time staff
> members Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks, even if they did hire Holmes
> to write her introduction story. If so, her situation would be
> different.)
>
>> As far as I can make out, it's just the
>> Daleks and K9.
>
> Don't forget the incident with Quarks. It was arguments about whether
> their creators or the BBC owned their rights that drove Henry Lincoln
> away from script-writing and into conspiracy theories instead. I
> suppose it might be possible that post-Quark, the contracts with
> freelancers were drawn up differently giving the BBC a share in the
> rights to the characters, to prevent a similar incident happening
> again.
>
> OTOH the K9 business would imply that nothing changed. And I vaguely
> recall reading that when the last minute decision was made to turn
> Nyssa into a regular character, they had to negotiate with her creator
> and pay him for the use of her, so the situation was still in place in
> the early 80s.
That might suggest that the rules were different if a character was
*created* to be a regular character. Probably, based on what you say
above, because regular characters were mostly created by full-time
staff, usually in committee.
In any event, my initial instinct that it was a lot more complicated
than people thought seems to be truer than I could possibly imagine
8-)...
Duggy
wrote:
> Doesn't seem to be; like I said the Cybermen aren't, and they don't seem
> to need the permission of Bob Holmes's family to use the Autons,
Although an Autons film was made without the Beeb wasn't it?
> or the
> Sontarans, or Sarah Jane herself. As far as I can make out, it's just the
> Daleks and K9.
It seems the Daleks had something going on since they couldn't even
show repeats of Dalek episodes at one point...
Although the same hasn't been true for K9 as far as I can see,
> Characters created for other media are in an even weirder position, since
> Benny Summerfield, say, wasn't actually created for the BBC and it's
> entirely possible that she was owned by Virgin Publishing (at least until
> they went under), in the same way as the Special Executive (created by
> Moore for Marvel UK's Doctor Who Magazine, thereby tying it all together)
> is the property of Marvel.
OK, how about the plots to Shada & City of Death which Douglas Adams
was able to stop the BBC producing novelisations of and used the plot
(with the serial numbers filed off) for one of his own novels.
I think there's a lot of creator's rights stuff going on with old Who
& the BBC.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> (I wonder if Sarah Jane was *officially* created by full-time staff
> members Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks, even if they did hire Holmes
> to write her introduction story. If so, her situation would be
> different.)
There is no way showrunners would ask a freelancer to write a script
that creates a new ongoing character for them.
Rather they'd create, name, build up some back story for, maybe even
come up with how they meet and even cast the role... and then ask the
writer to write her first story.
> OTOH the K9 business would imply that nothing changed. And I vaguely
> recall reading that when the last minute decision was made to turn
> Nyssa into a regular character, they had to negotiate with her creator
> and pay him for the use of her, so the situation was still in place in
> the early 80s.
Seems so.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> You're right; the Wikipedia entry for the Auton trilogy says "all story
> elements relating to Doctor Who were licensed from their respective
> authors". I'm assuming "all elements" means they also got Derrick
> Sherwin's permission to use UNIT.
Is that cited? And how does it define "authors".
Next question is... was UNIT created by the showrunners for the series
or did they appear as a one-off in a story and get used later?
> > OTOH the K9 business would imply that nothing changed. And I vaguely
> > recall reading that when the last minute decision was made to turn
> > Nyssa into a regular character, they had to negotiate with her creator
> > and pay him for the use of her, so the situation was still in place in
> > the early 80s.
> That might suggest that the rules were different if a character was
> *created* to be a regular character. Probably, based on what you say
> above, because regular characters were mostly created by full-time
> staff, usually in committee.
Exactly.
Whereas Nyssa was a character created, like many others, to appear in
a single story, but because Tom Baker told them he was leaving they
wanted to add as many continuing characters as possible to bridge the
gap and so asked Nyssa's creator if they could keep her.
> In any event, my initial instinct that it was a lot more complicated
> than people thought seems to be truer than I could possibly imagine
> 8-)...
Doesn't seem too complicated.
===
= DUG.
===
Will Dockery
> On Sep 4, 3:31 pm, "YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyMcNut...@foxnews.com> wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote in news:16c9835e-3e74-4be5-
> > 858c-b0b08d4fc...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > Yes, I often wonder what the future holds for Marvelman... but at
> > > least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
>
> > > Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> > > a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> > > more the Disney way.
>
> > That would work for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes as an intro, the way
> > the 1950s stories were used in the revival.
>
> > > Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> > > horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> > > or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> > > childbirth scene?
>
> > I think Peter David has at least put an entry into that last sweepstakes.
> > Not familiar with that... if it goes as far at the Miracleman "birth
>
> scene", that's really notable.
>
> It's apples and oranges. Miracleman's birth scene was graphic. Peter
> David's was noteworthy in a storytelling way.
>
> > > Questions... and more questions...
>
> > Disney made BLINDNESS. Disney made THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS. Disney
> > distributed APOCALYPTO. Disney has made and released horror on all kinds
> > of levels. I don't think the material in the MM revival would make the
> > Mouse think twice. It would certainly be released through either
> > Touchstone or, more likely, Miramax, but I can see it going through
> > largely as-is, though it'd face serious time-compression.
> > Ah, okay, so my perception of what "Walt Disney" signifies is
>
> obviously not up-to-date... that's a good thing in the case of
> Marvelman, reprints and new material, then.
>
> character are yet?
Seems quiet on the Marvelman front, lately... anyone know?
Will Dockery
> On 4-Sep-2009, "YKW (ad hoc)" <FluffyMcNut...@foxnews.com> wrote:
>
> > Disney made BLINDNESS. Disney made THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PYJAMAS. Disney
> > distributed APOCALYPTO. Disney has made and released horror on all kinds
> > of levels. I don't think the material in the MM revival would make the
> > Mouse think twice. It would certainly be released through either
> > Touchstone or, more likely, Miramax, but I can see it going through
> > largely as-is, though it'd face serious time-compression.
>
> Marvel is owned by Disney Productions. They'll probably still be labeled
> as Marvel Entertainment. Now that Marvel has bought the rights to
> Marvelman, which was a reproduction of Captain Marvel, I could see this
> character being built-up and being Marvel's answer to The Original Captain
> Marvel. If Disney decided to distribute a Marvelman film, I am sure that it
> would be a success since that is pretty much Disney's reputation!
Whatever happens to Marvelman at this point, they have my
attention...
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
> least it does seem that he actually /has/ a future!
>
> Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> more the Disney way.
Here's a nice vision of how such a Disney Marvelman might look, by
David Golding:
"ORIGINAL MARVELMAN BUSTING CHAINS 2006"
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=106211425&imageID=7021886
Another nice Marvelman/Miracleman piece by Golding:
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=106211425&imageID=36634216
> Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> childbirth scene?
>
> Questions... and more questions...
Will Dockery
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/11/are-mark-millar-and-steve-mcniven-reviving-marvelman/
"...While currently this is nothing more than pure conjecture, a quick
Google search has led this part-time blogger to believe that the much-
hyped, super-secret, forthcoming Mark Millar/Steve McNiven project for
Marvel is in fact a Marvelman series.
Millar announced Friday that he and McNiven – his collaborator on
Civil War and "Old Man Logan" – are joining forces on Nemesis for the
House of Ideas with an expected launch date of March 2010.
"Nemesis" just so happens to be the subtitle of Miracleman #15 ,
written by Alan Moore and penciled by John T. Totleben.
Considered by many to be the most “shocking,” “disturbing” and “sought-
after” appearance of the Mick Anglo creation, the issue features an
epic battle between Miracleman and his "nemesis" Kid Miracleman.
Did Millar land the ultimate gig to be the man responsible for folding
the classic British hero into the Marvel Universe?"
Will Dockery
> Are Mark Millar and Steve McNiven reviving Marvelman?
>
>
> "...While currently this is nothing more than pure conjecture, a quick
> Google search has led this part-time blogger to believe that the much-
> hyped, super-secret, forthcoming Mark Millar/Steve McNiven project for
> Marvel is in fact a Marvelman series.
>
> Millar announced Friday that he and McNiven – his collaborator on
> Civil War and "Old Man Logan" – are joining forces on Nemesis for the
> House of Ideas with an expected launch date of March 2010.
>
> "Nemesis" just so happens to be the subtitle of Miracleman #15 ,
> written by Alan Moore and penciled by John T. Totleben.
>
> Considered by many to be the most “shocking,” “disturbing” and “sought-
> after” appearance of the Mick Anglo creation, the issue features an
> epic battle between Miracleman and his "nemesis" Kid Miracleman.
>
> Did Millar land the ultimate gig to be the man responsible for folding
> the classic British hero into the Marvel Universe?"
Now, Googling around tonight, I'm seeing a lot of this:
http://www.comicbookdaily.com/wp/daily_news/investigative-journalism-who-was-behind-the-door/
"...So Marvel’s latest mystery is who is Osborn’s mystery man that’s
keeping the Cabal in check. A lot of theories, not a lot of answers.
I’m going to take a look at a few of the front runners...
...Marvelman. A lot of people seem to think this is Osborn’s secret
weapon. He is a character that could keep everyone else in line due
to his power level and he’s a recently acquired marvel character that
has yet to debut and this would be a rather splashy way of doing it.
But alas, this theory has a few holes.
Hole number one is the simplest. It’s way out of character for
everyone. Marvelman has never existed in the Marvel universe. None of
the characters involved in Osborn’s merry band of evil would have any
clue who the dude in blue tights is let alone fear him. For that
matter, neither would Osborn. Beyond that, it would also be out of
character for Marvelman to sign up with these guys. Besides that, when
last we saw Marvel Man he was more or less a god, there isn’t much
about the Marvelman/Miracleman series that I remember having anything
that Osborn could use as a bargaining chip with Marvel Man.
If Marvel has reprinted the old Marvelman material, I could maybe see
it but so far that has yet to happen..."
Any thoughts on this comics scholars?
Scott Eiler
> "...So Marvel’s latest mystery is who is Osborn’s mystery man that’s
> keeping the Cabal in check. A lot of theories, not a lot of answers.
> I’m going to take a look at a few of the front runners...
>
> ...Marvelman. A lot of people seem to think this is Osborn’s secret
> weapon. He is a character that could keep everyone else in line due
> to his power level and he’s a recently acquired marvel character that
> has yet to debut and this would be a rather splashy way of doing it.
Isn't it enough that Osborn has the Sentry in his pocket? For that
matter, who says the Sentry isn't secretly Marvelman?
whoswhoz
There is absolutely no way that Alan Moore's version of Marvel Man
could be fit into the Marvel Universe. I think even Quesada is
capable of understanding this. Turning Marvelman into another
cardboard cut out Marvel Xerox character would be the ultimate act of
artistic sabotage.
Will Dockery
Jeeze... this is sounding worse every time I think about it.
Will Dockery
I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
knockoff, I think?
Scott Eiler
> I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
> knockoff, I think?
You might say, all super-powered heroes are Superman knockoffs. The
Sentry is simply more blatant than most.
Most of the relevant Sentry stories are being told in the Dark
Avengers series now.
Will Dockery
redraw includes it..."
Yes... I've just been looking at "The Yesterday Gambit", available
(for now) here:
http://miraclemen.info/comics/W04.html
http://miraclemen.info/comics/W04.html
http://miraclemen.info/comics/W04.html
"For a while there was talk of having the Moore stories retold as a
different character ... I was rooting for Captain Miracle myself."
"Fascinating convolutions Anglo put the character through, Captain
Miracle is covered fairly well here, who supposedly fought the...
KKK?"
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/capmir.htm
And then Anglo's Super Hombre, Marvelman stories redrawn for the
Spanish market, which were then translated back to English, as...
Miracle Man!... Read More
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/m/mircman.htm
This is all pretty hilarious, Marvelman's history has got to be the
most complicated & convoluted of all time...
I just came across this, pretty interesting description of Marvelman
#255, July 5 1958:
"This issue’s 8-page cover-story, “Marvelman And The Prehistoric Men”,
starts as Mickey Moran -- Marvelman’s civilian alter ego -- reads a
book that contains photos of petroglyphs drawn by prehistoric cavemen.
Somehow, the cave-wall ...pictures include a depiction of what looks
like a sleek spaceship! Deciding to investigate, Mickey utters the
magic keyword “Kimota” and (accompanied by the somewhat inappropriate
sound effect “Woof”) is transformed into Marvelman!"
Cover scan of the issue is included, as well:
http://www.oddballcomics.com/article.php?story=archive2002-01-21
Cool stuff, hope some of y'all enjoy it...
David Johnston
<sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 2:17 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
>> knockoff, I think?
>
>You might say, all super-powered heroes are Superman knockoffs.
You might say it, but it isn't true. There were super-powered heroes
before Superman.
Will Dockery
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:43:18 -0800 (PST), Scott Eiler wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 2:17 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
> >> knockoff, I think?
>
> >You might say, all super-powered heroes are Superman knockoffs.
>
> You might say it, but it isn't true. There were super-powered heroes
> before Superman.
I sure don't see how DC managed to so successfully persecute Captain
Marvel, since there's almost nothing really similar about the
character and Superman. Captain Marvel and Marvelman relationship is,
of course, no secret... but I suppose if DC were going to object to
that they would have 25 years ago.
Back to "Osborn's secret weapon", there are murmerings elsewhere on
the internet from some who are convinced Marvelman will make his
Marvel debut in that storyline next month. I haven't read the series
so far... is this really possible? I guess I'll reserve myself a copy,
just in case.
Scott Eiler
> Back to "Osborn's secret weapon", there are murmerings elsewhere on
> the internet from some who are convinced Marvelman will make his
> Marvel debut in that storyline next month. I haven't read the series
> so far... is this really possible? I guess I'll reserve myself a copy,
> just in case.
House ads for that "Siege" storyline next month are saying, "Who is
Norman's Secret Weapon?", along with pictures of Odin, the Beyonder,
the Scarlet Witch, the Molecule Man, Thanos, Nate Grey, and Mephisto.
Of those options, I think I'd prefer Marvelman.
William George Ferguson
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 10:21�am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:43:18 -0800 (PST), Scott Eiler wrote:
>> >On Nov 11, 2:17 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> >> I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
>> >> knockoff, I think?
>>
>> >You might say, all super-powered heroes are Superman knockoffs. �
>>
>> You might say it, but it isn't true. �There were super-powered heroes
>> before Superman.
>
>I sure don't see how DC managed to so successfully persecute Captain
>Marvel, since there's almost nothing really similar about the
>character and Superman.
If you did 'persecute' rather than 'prosecute' intentionally, then you are
exactly right, otherwise it's a fortunate typo. DC didn't successfully sue
Fawcett over Captain Marvel, they sued, the original suit was dismissed,
they kept trying to sue, the case was delayed, and when the bottom fell out
of the superhero comics market in the early 50s, Fawcett got out of the
business of publishing superhero comics, which made the lawsuit moot. Later
on (much later on), Fawcett first leased, and then sold, the rights to the
Marvel family to DC, making the copyright infringement suit even mooter.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:34:06 -0800 (PST), Will Dockery
>
> >On Dec 12, 10:21 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:43:18 -0800 (PST), Scott Eiler wrote:
> >> >On Nov 11, 2:17 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> >> I guess I better look into this Sentry guy... he's a sort of Superman
> >> >> knockoff, I think?
>
> >> >You might say, all super-powered heroes are Superman knockoffs.
>
> >> You might say it, but it isn't true. There were super-powered heroes
> >> before Superman.
>
> >I sure don't see how DC managed to so successfully persecute Captain
> >Marvel, since there's almost nothing really similar about the
> >character and Superman.
>
> If you did 'persecute' rather than 'prosecute' intentionally, then you are
> exactly right, otherwise it's a fortunate typo.
No, I meant "persecute", since I really think the entire lawsuit was
based on the fact that Captain Marvel was a bigger seller than
Superman. They certainly never had very much in common as far as
origin, personality, characters, anything. The whole thing seems to
have been based on money, and at least a touch of jealousy.
DC didn't successfully sue
> Fawcett over Captain Marvel, they sued, the original suit was dismissed,
> they kept trying to sue, the case was delayed, and when the bottom fell out
> of the superhero comics market in the early 50s, Fawcett got out of the
> business of publishing superhero comics, which made the lawsuit moot. Later
> on (much later on), Fawcett first leased, and then sold, the rights to the
> Marvel family to DC, making the copyright infringement suit even mooter.
And as we've seen, DC (in my opinion) has never really been able to
get anything done very well with the characters... although I stopped
paying attention sometime around 1975 or so. Maybe if they'd had hired
Alan Moore when he was a teenager...
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> --
Anim8rFSK
<aed3ad63-ff06-4d49...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
The thing is, it's got to be somebody that Norman's cabal would all
recognize and fear. Does anybody there fill the bill?
--
Happy 30th Anniversary
STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE
http://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
"The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning"
Will Dockery
> In article
> <aed3ad63-ff06-4d49-8d61-fc683e6c7...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Back to "Osborn's secret weapon", there are murmerings elsewhere on
> > > the internet from some who are convinced Marvelman will make his
> > > Marvel debut in that storyline next month. I haven't read the series
> > > so far... is this really possible? I guess I'll reserve myself a copy,
> > > just in case.
>
> > House ads for that "Siege" storyline next month are saying, "Who is
> > Norman's Secret Weapon?", along with pictures of Odin, the Beyonder,
> > the Scarlet Witch, the Molecule Man, Thanos, Nate Grey, and Mephisto.
> > Of those options, I think I'd prefer Marvelman.
>
> The thing is, it's got to be somebody that Norman's cabal would all
> recognize and fear. Does anybody there fill the bill?
It sure doesn't seem like Marvelman would cover that angle.
> --
> Happy 30th Anniversary
> STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTUREhttp://www.onedigitallife.com/images/star-trek-the-motion-picture.jpg
Scott Eiler
> On Dec 12, 11:46 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <aed3ad63-ff06-4d49-8d61-fc683e6c7...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
>
> > > House ads for that "Siege" storyline next month are saying, "Who is
> > > Norman's Secret Weapon?", along with pictures of Odin, the Beyonder,
> > > the Scarlet Witch, the Molecule Man, Thanos, Nate Grey, and Mephisto.
> > > Of those options, I think I'd prefer Marvelman.
>
> > The thing is, it's got to be somebody that Norman's cabal would all
> > recognize and fear. Does anybody there fill the bill?
>
> It sure doesn't seem like Marvelman would cover that angle.
He would, if only he were like the Sentry only not crazy. "The Sentry
only not crazy" would probably make the whole Marvel Universe bow down
before him.
Will Dockery
Basically, I suppose that could easily be Marvelman's entry into the
Marvel Universe, and a way to keep all the Moore-Gaiman material
intact. Reprint all the 1950s material (just because I want it, I
suppose, I'd like to even see new C.C. Beck type stories maybe aimed
at kids, call it Kimota! like so:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ECaxkW6WsvBDMmppZFHXBw?feat=directlink
Then the Moore, get Gaiman to finish his Dark Ages, where I suppose
Marvelman's home universe is possibly completely destroyed, which
leads him here Marvel Universe) and I suppose brings him to this
Osborne situation (whatever that is, I admit I haven't read a bit of
it) and a different problem than he had at the end of the Moore run, a
universe filled with superheroes besides himself (although in Total
Eclipse he mingled about with Airboy and the other Eclipse heroes, and
the first Gaiman Miracleman story took place in that book), making a
fell swoop Utopia quite a bit of a different proposition... maybe...
I do think there's little doubt that Marvel will put Marvelman in the
MU, and this way would make more sense than some others... maybe.
Raymond Speer
This mystery, such as it is, comes from the initial meeting of Norman
Osbourne's cabal, in which Norm stands next to an open door that leads
from a basement hall into a cheap basement conference room.
Somebody or something is in that doorway and Norm says that his cabal
does things his way or else . . . .
Okay, Doom and Loki are present, and they are each immensely powerful
and exceedingly arrogant, but they say not a word. That indicates they
recognize the "hidden guest star" and are intimidated by him.
Whaddefook? It cannot be Marvelman, a celebrity from an alternative
Earth who has never been shown to have a counterpart on Earth 616.
If it had been Marvelman, the scene would have been as follows:
(Loki.) Who art that?
(Doom.) From my extensive inquiries of other dimensions, I believe
that may be the Plutonian from Earth 1313, an omnipotent super who has
become a psychopathic mass-murderer on his home reality.
(Osborne.) You're wrong, Dr. Know it All.
(Doom.) Marvel Boy with a haircut? Hank Pym with bleached hair? . . .
Ah-hah, Flash Thompson!
OSBORNE SNICKERS. NAMOR TRIES TO COOL DOOM DOWN.
(Namor.) Osborne, your little charade is silly and contemptous. Don't
you know how stupid and pathetic you are to try to play such trivia.
(Namor, to Doom, sotto voice.) Victor, your revved up energy gauntlets
give me a headache.
DOOM GLARES MALEVOLENTLY.
(Emma Frost.) He sorta resembles Paste Pot Pete, the Trapster. Not that
I ever spent much time with members of the Frightful Four.
----- The best suggestion made when I previously asked the question was
that the Mighty Mystery Man of Might was Stan Lee himself.
But being that this was a Bendis presentation, maybe Mr.
Super-Duper-Mystery is nothing but that lariat using cowboy who hung out
in early SPIDER-MANs with a tough partner named Ox and a moustached guy
with a cheap suit.
Will Dockery
> This mystery, such as it is, comes from the initial meeting of Norman
> Osbourne's cabal, in which Norm stands next to an open door that leads
> from a basement hall into a cheap basement conference room.
>
> Somebody or something is in that doorway and Norm says that his cabal
> does things his way or else . . . .
>
> Okay, Doom and Loki are present, and they are each immensely powerful
> and exceedingly arrogant, but they say not a word. That indicates they
> recognize the "hidden guest star" and are intimidated by him.
>
> Whaddefook? It cannot be Marvelman, a celebrity from an alternative
> Earth who has never been shown to have a counterpart on Earth 616.
Yes, not that I know very much (or anything, really) about all the
Earths Marvel has concocted over the last few years, but the actual
first appearances of Marvelman (and interestingly, the first place he
was known as Miracleman I know of) in Marvel Comics (UK) had him
quickly killed off, on Earth "238":
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/miracl.htm
"...in 1983 Moore introduced Earth 238, meant to contain counterparts
of British superheroes of the 1950s & 1960s...Marvelman was renamed
Miracleman... [two years before]... Miracleman #1, August 1985..."
[...]
"I have presumed that Miracleman's adventures on Earth 238 mirrored
those of Marvelman in his 1950s & 1960s comic books. Thus, in contrast
to what Moore wrote about Marvelman stories of the 1980s, for the
Miracleman of Earth 238 these adventures actually did take place, and
were not illusions..."
[...]
"...in Secret Defenders #18, Doctor Druid, Anthony Ludgate of Earth
616, revealed that he had used the alias "Guntag Barhelm", who gave
Marvelman his powers. Thus, it can be assumed that Doctor Druid is the
Earth 616 counterpart of Guntag Barthelm, creator of Marvelman..."
Not that this really has anything to do with this Osborne silliness,
but is some fun reading for a Miracleman fan, and certainly could be
some excellent routes for Marvel to take, now that they own the
"golden age" Marvelman stories outright, or so it seems.
> If it had been Marvelman, the scene would have been as follows:
>
> (Loki.) Who art that?
>
> (Doom.) From my extensive inquiries of other dimensions, I believe
> that may be the Plutonian from Earth 1313, an omnipotent super who has
> become a psychopathic mass-murderer on his home reality.
>
> (Osborne.) You're wrong, Dr. Know it All.
>
> (Doom.) Marvel Boy with a haircut? Hank Pym with bleached hair? . . .
> Ah-hah, Flash Thompson!
>
> OSBORNE SNICKERS. NAMOR TRIES TO COOL DOOM DOWN.
>
> (Namor.) Osborne, your little charade is silly and contemptous. Don't
> you know how stupid and pathetic you are to try to play such trivia.
>
> (Namor, to Doom, sotto voice.) Victor, your revved up energy gauntlets
> give me a headache.
>
> DOOM GLARES MALEVOLENTLY.
>
> (Emma Frost.) He sorta resembles Paste Pot Pete, the Trapster. Not that
> I ever spent much time with members of the Frightful Four.
>
> ----- The best suggestion made when I previously asked the question was
> that the Mighty Mystery Man of Might was Stan Lee himself.
>
> But being that this was a Bendis presentation, maybe Mr.
> Super-Duper-Mystery is nothing but that lariat using cowboy who hung out
> in early SPIDER-MANs with a tough partner named Ox and a moustached guy
> with a cheap suit.
Sounds a bit like the gay Rawhide Kid...
Billy Bissette
@news.dc1.easynews.com:
> In article
> <aed3ad63-ff06-4d49...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Back to "Osborn's secret weapon", there are murmerings elsewhere on
>> > the internet from some who are convinced Marvelman will make his
>> > Marvel debut in that storyline next month. I haven't read the series
>> > so far... is this really possible? I guess I'll reserve myself a copy,
>> > just in case.
>>
>> House ads for that "Siege" storyline next month are saying, "Who is
>> Norman's Secret Weapon?", along with pictures of Odin, the Beyonder,
>> the Scarlet Witch, the Molecule Man, Thanos, Nate Grey, and Mephisto.
>> Of those options, I think I'd prefer Marvelman.
>
> The thing is, it's got to be somebody that Norman's cabal would all
> recognize and fear. Does anybody there fill the bill?
Anybody can fit the bill once Marvel retcons past interactions
between the characters.
Sentry wouldn't have been such a "big deal" inside the MU if it
weren't for all the retcons that went with him.
Namor and Emma Frost wouldn't have been so quick to team up if
it wasn't for the retcon of a past fling between the two.
Will Dockery
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote in news:ANIM8Rfsk-269FA1.21464812122009
> > Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > Back to "Osborn's secret weapon", there are murmerings elsewhere on
> >> > the internet from some who are convinced Marvelman will make his
> >> > Marvel debut in that storyline next month. I haven't read the series
> >> > so far... is this really possible? I guess I'll reserve myself a copy,
> >> > just in case.
>
> >> House ads for that "Siege" storyline next month are saying, "Who is
> >> Norman's Secret Weapon?", along with pictures of Odin, the Beyonder,
> >> the Scarlet Witch, the Molecule Man, Thanos, Nate Grey, and Mephisto.
> >> Of those options, I think I'd prefer Marvelman.
>
> > The thing is, it's got to be somebody that Norman's cabal would all
> > recognize and fear. Does anybody there fill the bill?
>
> Anybody can fit the bill once Marvel retcons past interactions
> between the characters.
>
> Sentry wouldn't have been such a "big deal" inside the MU if it
> weren't for all the retcons that went with him.
I've never read any Sentry, but did gawk at what looked like a pretty
good retro type comic, the cover, anyway, since the only comic shop in
the area keeps the comix taped inside the mylar bags, so there's no
"browsing" allowed. From childhood, I've /never/ bought a comic book
based solely on the cover, so this practice of my old friend Pat
really backfires in my case. The books just cost way too much for me
to do much impulse buying unless I'm really sure about what the inside
contents are like. Can't even buy on the strength of the creator, and
whether I usually enjoy their work, as I found out with the mess Frank
Miller made of All-Star Batman.
Anyway, the whole idea of Sentry always having been around, friend to
Reed Richards et al back in the early days, just strikes me as awful,
and directly against what I considered Marvel's strength in bygone
times... as someone elsewhere commented, why didn't they just include
someone who /really was/ around the Marvel Universe, back then,
instead of this (what seems to me) Sentry crap? Someone mentioned
Marvel Boy, which I think would have been cool... and btw, I wonder if
Atlas in the USA was influenced by Miller & Son in the UK with their
Marvelman and Young Marvelman successes? I haven't checked, but the
time periods seem like they might fit..?
Also, back to Sentry, this "created by Stan Lee & stashed away for
decades' schtick is a godawful scam worthy of a boycott in itself...
> Namor and Emma Frost wouldn't have been so quick to team up if
> it wasn't for the retcon of a past fling between the two.
Sub-Mariner is one of my greatest & beloved childhood memories... the
1969-1970something run & Fantasy Masterpieces Bill Everett reprints
were one of the many thrills of being alive and a kid back in those
olden times... when Marvel could pretty much do no wrong. I Googled
Emma Frost, and she seems pretty damned sharp, and a nice match for
old Subby. The old guy sure has some good taste...
--
New poetry & music recordings by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Scott Eiler
> Also, back to Sentry, this "created by Stan Lee & stashed away for
> decades" schtick is a godawful scam worthy of a boycott in itself...
>
> I Googled
> Emma Frost, and she seems pretty damned sharp, and a nice match for
> old Subby. The old guy sure has some good taste...
Google may not have mentioned, Emma Frost-as-hero is almost as big a
retcon as the Sentry is. She started out as a villainess, dressed in
a Victoria's Secret outfit, working for the Hellfire Club.
Billy Bissette
70f275...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Emma Frost as a hero isn't a retcon. It was progressive, going from
her early bad days to the Hellions to Gen-X to teaching in Genosha to
allying with the X-Men after Genosha's destruction to falling for
Scott while trying to cause trouble for him.
Now, the fling with Namor includes an Emma-as-hero retcon, as it
pretty much tries to paint early Hellfire Club Emma as a nice woman
who just happened to get mixed up with the wrong crowd.
Scott Eiler
> Emma Frost as a hero isn't a retcon. It was progressive, going from
> her early bad days to the Hellions to Gen-X to teaching in Genosha to
> allying with the X-Men after Genosha's destruction to falling for
> Scott while trying to cause trouble for him.
>
> Now, the fling with Namor includes an Emma-as-hero retcon, as it
> pretty much tries to paint early Hellfire Club Emma as a nice woman
> who just happened to get mixed up with the wrong crowd.
The Emma Frost miniseries also went that way. Teen Emma turned out
not to be a villainess, just misunderstood by her family, thereby easy
prey for villains. Good thing the Hellfire Club doesn't exist in the
real world, or else they'd have recruited 99% of us.
Billy Bissette
bfc7b8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
From what I recall hearing (not having read it myself), the Emma
Frost miniseries was her teen years. While it was a retcon, she'd
at least have had time to grow evil.
Not that the series would actually show it, since it didn't have
any set plan or duration, but rather was designed to run as long as
possible. And it wanted a "heroine", not a villain-in-training.
Lilith
Especially if they told us we could wear slutty clothing to club
meetings.
--
Lilith (who can't find her old leather outfits)
Will Dockery
> Scott Eiler <sei...@eilertech.com> wrote in news:cfb23190-19af-41ea-97d5-
> >Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>
> >> Emma Frost as a hero isn't a retcon. It was progressive, going from
> >> her early bad days to the Hellions to Gen-X to teaching in Genosha to
> >> allying with the X-Men after Genosha's destruction to falling for
> >> Scott while trying to cause trouble for him.
>
> >> Now, the fling with Namor includes an Emma-as-hero retcon, as it
> >> pretty much tries to paint early Hellfire Club Emma as a nice woman
> >> who just happened to get mixed up with the wrong crowd.
>
> > The Emma Frost miniseries also went that way. Teen Emma turned out
> > not to be a villainess, just misunderstood by her family, thereby easy
> > prey for villains. Good thing the Hellfire Club doesn't exist in the
> > real world, or else they'd have recruited 99% of us.
>
> From what I recall hearing (not having read it myself), the Emma
> Frost miniseries was her teen years. While it was a retcon, she'd
> at least have had time to grow evil.
>
> Not that the series would actually show it, since it didn't have
> any set plan or duration, but rather was designed to run as long as
> possible. And it wanted a "heroine", not a villain-in-training.
A question about Namor, and recons, relaunches, et cetera... is he
still on continuity from his earliest stories, as he was at one time?
I haven't read Sub-Mariner or really any Marvel for a long while, so
I'm not sure how stories such as this:
http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics153.html
"...Golden Age comics continue to live up to their promise of insanity
and violence as we present a vintage Sub-Mariner story that straddles
the fine line between 'whimsical' and 'mind-ruining'... In this
charming story, entitled 'Blitzkrieg Of The Living Dead', right off
the bat we're told of the threat posed by 'Nazombies' who 'laugh at
death'. Since we're all still laughing at the term "Nazombies", I
guess that makes us even..."
are looked upon, in these modern times. Are they considered to have
even really happened?
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Marcovaldo
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Lawsy! It's the Submariner!" LOL! Thanks for posting the link.
Will Dockery
Wild stuff, indeed!
Raymond Speer
Nazombies --- a Golden Age Submariner threat now resurrected to be the
new menace in each & every title published by Marvel.
Their response to DC's BLACKEST NIGHT.
Will Dockery
Could be seen as sort of a resonse to Inglourious Basterds, also...
Will Dockery
http://slovobooks.blogspot.com/2010/01/marvelman-copyright-same-comic.html
Will Dockery
Bendis stating that Marvelman will not be part of the main Marvel
Universe:
> Interesting stuff on the Marvelman copyright:
>
> http://slovobooks.blogspot.com/2010/01/marvelman-copyright-same-comic...
Black Terror
On 4-Sep-2009, Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wonder what effect Disney now owning Marvel will have... I can imagine
> a more Golden Age CC Beck style, or rather Mick Anglo, as being much
> more the Disney way.
>
> Would Disney allow the graphic-to-grisley scenes to remain, esp those
> horrific yet brilliant Totleben visions of the destruction of London,
> or the scandalaous (still been nothing like it in comix I know of)
> childbirth scene?
I am sure that Disney will produce the Marvel Entertainment properties in a
seperate continuity than their standard properties (Old Yeller, Little
Mermaid, Donald Duck, etc.); and I don't think we'll be seeing the personas
of The Punisher, or Wolverine walking around at Disneyland. If Disney does
well with Marvel Entertainment then perhaps we could look forward to a theme
park for those characters as well!
Lilith
Depends largely on what kind of deal Universal Studios currently has
with Marvel regarding these characters. I don't see them having
invested millions of dollars on rides like the Hulk roller coaster,
Doomfall or Spider-Man while leaving the potential to have the rights
to the characters' imaging. The other Marvel characters who make
appearances in the park are probably less problematical.
--
Lilith