NEWS: MARVEL CHANGES HANDS - ICAHN RULES
David Francis Smith
In article <19970621001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
comic...@aol.com (ComicBknet) wrote:
> In addition to Icahn, other new Marvel directors are...
> J. Winston Fowlkes III, co-founder of Voyager Communications,
Mr. Fowlkes appears to still be on board. I sense Mr. Shooter's presence
in the wings.
Col. Sir David F. Smith <~0-0~> yyr...@u.washington.edu
Survivor of the 1992-1993 University of Washington Transition School
Gearing Up for Global Destruction at Dunkin' Donuts!
ComicBknet
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 20, 1997--
Carl Icahn elected Chairman of Marvel Entertainment
Former Marvel Executive Joseph Calamari named Interim President
of Marvel
The board of directors of Marvel Holdings Inc., which was previously
elected
by the Marvel Bondholders' Committee, announced today that it has voted
its
majority of Marvel Entertainment Group Inc.'s (NYSE: MRV) equity to elect
a
new board of directors for Marvel Entertainment.
The new Marvel Board consists of nine members, seven selected by the
Marvel
Bondholders Committee and two selected by Marvel's Committee of Equity
Security Holders (the "Equity Committee").
The new Marvel Entertainment Board has named Joseph Calamari, former
executive vice president and owner of Marvel Entertainment, as interim
president of Marvel Entertainment. Calamari will head a transition team
that will begin immediately to address Marvel's problems and work to
restore
the company to profitability.
"This is a great day for Marvel Entertainment and those of us who want to
help this once-great company emerge from Chapter 11 and make the most of
its
superb characters and still-strong franchise for the benefit of Marvel's
owners, customers and employees," said Carl C. Icahn who has been elected
Chairman of the Board of Marvel Entertainment. "It has been a long,
complex
battle, but the bondholders have now been vindicated. The new board is
committed to restoring Marvel to financial and operational health and
Joseph
Calamari's experience and knowledge of Marvel's businesses will help us
get
the company back on track and position it to pursue a growth strategy."
In addition to Icahn, other new Marvel directors are Harold First, a
specialist in entertainment accounting; Robert Mitchel, treasurer of ACF
Industries Inc.; Jouko T. Tamminen, vice president of Icahn Associates;
J.
Winston Fowlkes III, co-founder of Voyager Communications, a publisher of
Action Adventure Comics and a former vice president of Time Warner
Communications; Vincent J. Intrieri, portfolio manager at Stonington
Management Corp.; Charles K. MacDonald, a private investor who is a
director of LIVE Entertainment Inc., a movie production company; Glen
Adams,
a director of Zale Corp. and U.S. Home Corp., and Michael J. Koblitz, a
managing director at Gruntal & Co. Inc. Adams and Koblitz were selected
by
the Equity Committee.
In addition, the new Marvel board of directors has exercised its right to
replace the eight Marvel directors on the 11-member board of directors of
Toy Biz Inc. (NYSE:TBZ). All of the nine new directors of Marvel other
than
Koblitz have also been elected directors of Toy Biz. The new board will
immediately conduct a review of Toy Biz strategy and operations.
...---====*David LeBlanc> Comic...@AOL.COM
Editor - Comic Book Net Electronic Magazine *Email me to subscribe FREE*
http://members.aol.com/ComicBkNet
Andrew D. Arnold
On 21 Jun 1997 00:12:58 GMT, comic...@aol.com (ComicBknet) wrote:
>
>In addition to Icahn, other new Marvel directors are Harold First, a
>specialist in entertainment accounting; Robert Mitchel, treasurer of ACF
>Industries Inc.; Jouko T. Tamminen, vice president of Icahn Associates;
>J. Winston Fowlkes III, co-founder of Voyager Communications, a publisher of
>Action Adventure Comics and a former vice president of Time Warner
>Communications; Vincent J. Intrieri, portfolio manager at Stonington
>Management Corp.; Charles K. MacDonald, a private investor who is a
>director of LIVE Entertainment Inc., a movie production company; Glen
>Adams, a director of Zale Corp. and U.S. Home Corp., and Michael J. Koblitz, a
>managing director at Gruntal & Co. Inc. Adams and Koblitz were selected
>by the Equity Committee.
So in other words not one person with any sense of editorial direction
for a comic book company, with the exception of Fowlkes III who
publishes the dubiously titled Action Adventure line. These suits
should have to pass a pop quiz before getting their letterhead:
What is the origin of Spiderman?
Who were the first members of the Avengers?
What are the names of the original Fantastic Four?
Why was Marvel successful in the first place?
------- IMPORTANT -------
Please change RAMBOZO to ada200
if you wish to reply personally.
This was done to discourage nefarious
junk-mailers.
Matthew S. Dolbow
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, David Francis Smith wrote:
> Mr. Fowlkes appears to still be on board. I sense Mr. Shooter's presence
> in the wings.
Wasn't this guy one of the people who got rid of Shooter at Valiant?
Matthew
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/msdolbow
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>On 21 Jun 1997 00:12:58 GMT, comic...@aol.com (ComicBknet) wrote:
>>In addition to Icahn, other new Marvel directors are Harold First, a
>>specialist in entertainment accounting; Robert Mitchel, treasurer of ACF
>>Industries Inc.; Jouko T. Tamminen, vice president of Icahn Associates;
>>J. Winston Fowlkes III, co-founder of Voyager Communications, a publisher of
>>Action Adventure Comics and a former vice president of Time Warner
>>Communications; Vincent J. Intrieri, portfolio manager at Stonington
>>Management Corp.; Charles K. MacDonald, a private investor who is a
>>director of LIVE Entertainment Inc., a movie production company; Glen
>>Adams, a director of Zale Corp. and U.S. Home Corp., and Michael J. Koblitz, a
>>managing director at Gruntal & Co. Inc. Adams and Koblitz were selected
>>by the Equity Committee.
My pal Andrew D. Arnold said:
>So in other words not one person with any sense of editorial direction
>for a comic book company, with the exception of Fowlkes III who
>publishes the dubiously titled Action Adventure line. These suits
>should have to pass a pop quiz before getting their letterhead:
>
>What is the origin of Spiderman?
>
>Who were the first members of the Avengers?
>
>What are the names of the original Fantastic Four?
>
>Why was Marvel successful in the first place?
This last question is the only one that might be relevant. The job of a
board of directors is not to run the company, but to set =direction= for
it (e.g. buy up competitors, spin-off certain units, branch out into new
businesses, develop partnerships overseas, etc.) and to hire the best
person available to be president. It is then the job of that president to
run the company, by hiring the right people to do the various jobs. Among
the people the president hires would be the editorial staff, and it is
=they= who need a sense of editorial direction (e.g. less dependence on
mutants, more self-contained stories, etc.)
(=This= is why it's noteworthy that Fowlkes, an associate of Jim Shooter,
is on the new board at Marvel, because it suggests that Shooter might be
among those hired at the top levels, or that his advice will be chanelled
through Fowlkes into the process of making those top-level decisions.)
Perelman's problem wasn't that he didn't know comics. (I dare say that
the board of Time-Warner don't either.) It was that he didn't care about
the company... except as a vehicle to make him money in the short term.
Icahn's board may not be any better, of course, but they might. As long
as they set a thoughtful long-term direction and let the people they hire
do their jobs, things could improve.
Cheers, Todd
---
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Nat Gertler
> >J. Winston Fowlkes III, co-founder of Voyager Communications, a publisher of
> >Action Adventure Comics and a former vice president of Time Warner
> >Communications;
>
> for a comic book company, with the exception of Fowlkes III who
> publishes the dubiously titled Action Adventure line.
I'm not sure if you're kidding here; "Voyager Communications" was
the company behind the Valiant line.
Andrew D. Arnold
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:47:39 GMT, ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd VerBeek,
gwm) wrote:
>My pal Andrew D. Arnold said:
>>What is the origin of Spiderman?
>>
>>Who were the first members of the Avengers?
>>
>>What are the names of the original Fantastic Four?
>>
>>Why was Marvel successful in the first place?
>
>This last question is the only one that might be relevant. The job of a
>board of directors is not to run the company, but to set =direction= for
>it (e.g. buy up competitors, spin-off certain units, branch out into new
>businesses, develop partnerships overseas, etc.) and to hire the best
>person available to be president.
>
>Perelman's problem wasn't that he didn't know comics. (I dare say that
>the board of Time-Warner don't either.) It was that he didn't care about
>the company...
Frankly I think not knowing comics WAS Perelman's problem. Knowing
about comics makes you care about a comics company. Hence my
suggestion for requiring a pop quiz for all the suits.
Jeremy Kareken
Todd VerBeek, gwm <ver...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Perelman's problem wasn't that he didn't know comics.
I think the _real_ problem, was the Perelman didn't know BUSINESS in this
case. As a matter of fact, Marvel's doing better in pure comic SALES than
all other companies, but Perelman didn't know how to transfer that into
larger profits in licensing.
His deal with Toy Biz virtually ASSURED Marvel would have little to no
profit on licensing and hold one of the most profitable pieces of the
industry as virtually profit-free for Marvel and its stockholders.
--
Yours etc,
/\
| |
_\/ /\ /_ /\ ____
/ / \_\/_/ /__\/__/ / /__/__/
\/ /
---/
Jeremy Kareken
http://idt.net/~karekenj
PatDOneill
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970621...@quads.uchicago.edu>,
"Matthew S. Dolbow" <msdo...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>
>> Mr. Fowlkes appears to still be on board. I sense Mr. Shooter's
presence
>> in the wings.
>
>Wasn't this guy one of the people who got rid of Shooter at Valiant?
No, he's one of the guys who left when Shooter was forced out, then
joined Shooter at both Defiant and Hollywood.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Steven Grant
On 22 Jun 1997 19:53:21 GMT, Jeremy Kareken <kare...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>I think the _real_ problem, was the Perelman didn't know BUSINESS in this
>case. As a matter of fact, Marvel's doing better in pure comic SALES than
>all other companies, but Perelman didn't know how to transfer that into
>larger profits in licensing.
The real problem is that Marvel is so much overvalued that even if
they sold thirty times what they're selling now, it wouldn't cover the
cost of purchase, or, in Icahn's case, what the stock and bondholders
have been led to believe the company is worth. At the deflated price
that Perelman was offering to buy out the company, its worth was still
pegged at over two BILLION dollars. That's an awful lot of faith in
the properties and that was all the valuation was really based on.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>>My pal Andrew D. Arnold said:
[new Marvel board members should be given a quiz:]
>>>What is the origin of Spiderman?
>>>
>>>Who were the first members of the Avengers?
>>>
>>>What are the names of the original Fantastic Four?
>>>
>>>Why was Marvel successful in the first place?
>ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd VerBeek, gwm) wrote:
>>This last question is the only one that might be relevant. The job of a
>>board of directors is not to run the company, but to set =direction= for
>>it (e.g. buy up competitors, spin-off certain units, branch out into new
>>businesses, develop partnerships overseas, etc.) and to hire the best
>>person available to be president.
>[snip]
>>Perelman's problem wasn't that he didn't know comics. (I dare say that
>>the board of Time-Warner don't either.) It was that he didn't care about
>>the company...
My pal Andrew D. Arnold said:
>Frankly I think not knowing comics WAS Perelman's problem. Knowing
>about comics makes you care about a comics company. Hence my
>suggestion for requiring a pop quiz for all the suits.
It certainly helps, but you can care about a company without having a
long-term familiarity with the product. I worked for a women's clothing
retailer, without knowing the difference between a jumper and a culotte,
and thinking for part of that time that "shrinkage" was what happened when
you washed a blouse wrong. But I knew how to do my job (which had no more
to do with jumpers and shrinkage than a board member's job has to do with
team rosters and origins), and I cared about the people I worked with.
That's all it takes.
Sorry to belabour this, but I'm a firm believer in the notion that the
only criteria for getting a job should be one's qualifications to do that
job. Requiring board members to pass a character-history quiz seems an
unnecessary way of limiting the pool to draw from.
Cheers, Todd (who could pass the quiz but would be a lousy board member)
Matthew S. Dolbow
re -- Mr. Fowlkes appears to still be on board.
On 22 Jun 1997, PatDOneill wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970621...@quads.uchicago.edu>,
> > Wasn't this guy one of the people who got rid of Shooter at Valiant?
> No, he's one of the guys who left when Shooter was forced out, then
> joined Shooter at both Defiant and Hollywood.
He, wow! Shooter back at Marvel, Yay! (I'm not kidding.) =P
Matthew
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/msdolbow
PatDOneill
In article <vpiuz52...@sten.tivoli.com>, Firebeard
<stend+r.a....@sten.tivoli.com> writes:
> Icahn may not know about comics, and may not care to know
>about comics, but he does care about the company, because restoring
>Marvel to health is the only way he's getting his investment (the loan
>he and his associates made to Marvel) back. If he wants to get back
>the money he's out (and he clearly does), he's a good businessman, and
>he'll know that he has to put people in place who know the business
>and LEAVE THEM ALONE. If he does that, there may be hope. It's
>worked for Time Warner and DC.
Icahn is out nothing. He's already made money on the deal.
Icahn was not one of the original lenders to Marvel. He quietly bought
other people's bonds at firesale prices when the first rumors about
Marvel's financial condition began circulating in early 1996. No one
even knew he had become the holder of the largest percentage of the
bonds until the Chapter 11 filing.
Icahn has no rep as a "hands-off" owner...his rep is "scorch-and-burn".
He acquires companies at fire sale prices (as he did with Marvel), then
disposes of them as quickly as possible.It's all profit to him and
disaster
for the small shareholders and employees.
Yuri Gorlinski
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
: Icahn has no rep as a "hands-off" owner...his rep is "scorch-and-burn".
: He acquires companies at fire sale prices (as he did with Marvel), then
: disposes of them as quickly as possible.It's all profit to him and
: disaster for the small shareholders and employees.
Why? Regardless of what he's planning to do in the future, Icahn has
to improve Marvel's financial situation before he can sell... The stock
of the small shareholders will go up just like Icahn's will, and Marvel's
employees will finally be able to relax in a secure and stable working
environment.
Where's the harm in Icahn jumping ship once it's been righted? The
important thing is that Marvel will get to reestablish its financial
security. This certainly sounds preferable to Pereleman's threats of
auctioning off Marvel's properties one at a time.
PatDOneill
In article <5or7vf$f...@cdc2.cdc.net>, Yuri Gorlinski <yg...@mojo.calyx.net>
writes:
> Why? Regardless of what he's planning to do in the future, Icahn has
>to improve Marvel's financial situation before he can sell... The stock
>of the small shareholders will go up just like Icahn's will, and Marvel's
>employees will finally be able to relax in a secure and stable working
>environment.
>
> Where's the harm in Icahn jumping ship once it's been righted? The
>important thing is that Marvel will get to reestablish its financial
>security. This certainly sounds preferable to Pereleman's threats of
>auctioning off Marvel's properties one at a time.
>
Because Icahn's history is doing exactly the same thing--selling his
acquisitions piecemeal. He's not interested in making them profitable
to anyone but him...and Marvel's already been that. Anything he makes
from selling the company eventually is profit, given what he reportedly
paid for the bonds that have now given him control of it.
ShutUpRob
>PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: Icahn has no rep as a "hands-off" owner...his rep is "scorch-and-burn".
>
>: He acquires companies at fire sale prices (as he did with Marvel), then
>: disposes of them as quickly as possible.It's all profit to him and
>: disaster for the small shareholders and employees.
>
> Why? Regardless of what he's planning to do in the future, Icahn has
>to improve Marvel's financial situation before he can sell... The stock
>of the small shareholders will go up just like Icahn's will, and Marvel's
>employees will finally be able to relax in a secure and stable working
>environment.
>
> Where's the harm in Icahn jumping ship once it's been righted? The
>important thing is that Marvel will get to reestablish its financial
>security. This certainly sounds preferable to Pereleman's threats of
>auctioning off Marvel's properties one at a time.
>
>
There's no guarantee, despite the fact that Icahn protested
Perelman's proposed break-up and sell-off of Marvel's properties,
that Icahn won't try to do the same exact thing once the dust
has settled from his victory.
Don't forget, Icahn and Perelman normally use the same
exact tactics . . .
-- Rob Jensen
==================================================
"Sleep? What's that?
Free time?! Never heard of it."
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
FACT
>Icahn is out nothing. He's already made money on the deal.
FACT
>Icahn was not one of the original lenders to Marvel. He quietly bought
>other people's bonds at firesale prices when the first rumors about
>Marvel's financial condition began circulating in early 1996. No one
>even knew he had become the holder of the largest percentage of the
>bonds until the Chapter 11 filing.
FACT
>Icahn has no rep as a "hands-off" owner...his rep is "scorch-and-burn".
FACT
>He acquires companies at fire sale prices (as he did with Marvel), then
>disposes of them as quickly as possible.It's all profit to him and
>disaster for the small shareholders and employees.
Well said, old boy, well spoken.
I've noticed that you're capable of nailing it with deadly
accuracy when it comes to points of fact. But, when it comes to
"opinion" , folks tend to come after you. Can THAT many folks
oppose your opinions? sheesh...
Then again, maybe it's because they think you're the grand
poohbah of Wizard because they didn't read the bottom line of
your posts. heh...
Poster A: "Yeah, man! Let's take pot shots at that Wizard guy!"
Poster B: "Oh sure. We hate him..."
Whatever the case, just know that we gotta gig ya a little bit
every now and again. It's in our nature to do this, and in our
own sick & twisted way, a sign of affection. At least, until we
start discussing your mother... I think you can figure out the
spirit THOSE posts are coming from. heh...
Later man...
(remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
"I stared long and hard into the abyss...
... and saw myself staring back"
Live Fast. Love Hard. Die with your mask on!
(Rick Veitch)
"Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
(Albert Einstein)
Yuri Gorlinski
ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
: There's no guarantee, despite the fact that Icahn protested
: Perelman's proposed break-up and sell-off of Marvel's properties,
: that Icahn won't try to do the same exact thing once the dust
: has settled from his victory.
And there's also no guarantee that Icahn will try the same thing.
The inclusion of Mr. Fowlkes on the board of directors is the
encouraging bit in all of this. From the little that I know about
Fowlkes' time at Valiant and Defiant, he seems to have a pretty good track
record.
But what's really intriguing is the possibility of Fowlkes bringing
Shooter aboard in some sort of editorial capacity. I think Jim Shooter
returning to Marvel, possibly as EIC, would be the best possible thing for
Marvel Comics right now. The stuff Shooter brings to the table, in terms
of a coherant and consistent creative vision with an emphasis on strong
storytelling, is exactly what Marvel's been in dire need of for the past
few years now.
As for the idea of Icahn (or Perleman, for that matter) auctioning off
Marvel's creative properties piecemeal, I have a very difficult time
believing that this is a serious possibility. Maybe I'm missing something
here, but I just don't see it. I can't see Marvel attempting this sort of
kamikaze barkerism. And I can't see any of the other companies buying
into it, even if they did.
How much would Marvel want for the rights to the X-Men, Spiderman, or
Hulk? How much would DC or Image be willing to pay for them? I suspect
that, in each case, they'd be two very different figures. With how little
money is being generated by the comic industry right now, I just can't see
a deal like this taking place.
Time will tell, I suppose...
Nat Gertler
Yuri Gorlinski wrote:
>
> How much would Marvel want for the rights to the X-Men, Spiderman, or
> Hulk? How much would DC or Image be willing to pay for them?
I sincerely doubt that Image itself would be interested in buying any
such rights--but then again, Image is not much of a rights-holder (I
believe it owns two things: its name and its logo).
ShutUpRob
In article <5oubn6$d...@cdc2.cdc.net>, Yuri Gorlinski
<yg...@mojo.calyx.net> writes:
>ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: There's no guarantee, despite the fact that Icahn protested
>: Perelman's proposed break-up and sell-off of Marvel's properties,
>: that Icahn won't try to do the same exact thing once the dust
>: has settled from his victory.
>
> And there's also no guarantee that Icahn will try the same thing.
But his previous track record indicates that there's a good
*possibility,* if not a *probability* that he *will* try to break up
Marvel company-by-company (not character-by-character) in
the same manner that Perelman's been attempting. IMO, this
is merely a power struggle for the right to break up Marvel. Wait
a few months until after the dust settles.
> The inclusion of Mr. Fowlkes on the board of directors is the
>encouraging bit in all of this. From the little that I know about
>Fowlkes' time at Valiant and Defiant, he seems to have a pretty
>good track record.
Mmm-hmm. And how long did Fowlkes and Shooter last
at Valiant? How long did Defiant last?
Wonderful track record. Not.
> But what's really intriguing is the possibility of Fowlkes bringing
>Shooter aboard in some sort of editorial capacity. I think Jim Shooter
>returning to Marvel, possibly as EIC, would be the best possible thing
for
>Marvel Comics right now. The stuff Shooter brings to the table, in terms
>of a coherant and consistent creative vision with an emphasis on strong
>storytelling, is exactly what Marvel's been in dire need of for the past
>few years now.
Only if you want bland, cookie-cutter comics with no personality
other than Jim Shooter's.
As a longtime fan, I remember Jim Shooter's reign of terror. I
prefer Marvel's current disorganization to his paranoid attitude
toward the fan press, his cowardly support of Michael Fleischer
in the TCJ/Harlan Ellison libel case, his ham-handed insistence
on one-page recaps of the either the characters' origins or the
previous issue in just about every issue of every comic produced
under his tenure whether such a flashback was needed or not,
his public treatment of Jack Kirby during the artwork controversy
of the mid-80's, and his revisionist press releases announcing the
beginning of Defiant in which he took credit for darn near every
landmark in comics in the previous two decades whether it had
been published by Marvel or not.
Whether you realize it or not, Shooter drove a *load* of
creators away from Marvel during his reign of terror because
of these and similar practices.[1] You might recognize the names
of many creators who jumped ship; they're DC veterans such
as Roy Thomas and Marv Wolfman (and, IIRC, John Byrne)
and mavericks such as Frank Miller -- just to name a few.
I invite other rac-ers to chime in with other examples.
> How much would Marvel want for the rights to the X-Men,
>Spiderman, or Hulk? How much would DC or Image be
>willing to pay for them? I suspect that, in each case,
>they'd be two very different figures. With how little money
>is being generated by the comic industry right now, I just can't see
>a deal like this taking place.
DC, of course, makes its money not off the comics
themselves, but off the profits from merchandising them -- and
primarily from merchandising Superman, Batman and, to a
lesser extent, Wonder Woman. With the backing of Time-
Warner, they certainly could afford to buy Marvel's characters.
Whether they would *want* to or are *able* to (if you consider
possible anti-trust concerns) is a different story.
I sincerely doubt that any of Image's individual studios could
afford to buy any of Marvel's heavy hitters, much less those you
name above, either series-by-series (highly unlikely in any form)
or as a whole. But, then again, I don't think that either Icahn or
Perelman would waste the time to shop the properties to any
company in the comics industry other than Time-Warner. The
most likely prospects for buying Marvel would lie in mulitmedia
conglomerates such as any movie or publishing company.
Image is strictly small-time -- even if TMP hits it big with the
Spawn movie.
-- Rob Jensen
[1] His factually dubious press release from Defiant, while
obviously published long after his term at Marvel had ended,
is still indicative of his shameless tendency for pushing
propaganda on the press and public during his tenure at
Marvel.
Sharon Rogerson
that really sucks
Matthew S. Dolbow (msdo...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, David Francis Smith wrote:
: > Mr. Fowlkes appears to still be on board. I sense Mr. Shooter's presence
: > in the wings.
: Wasn't this guy one of the people who got rid of Shooter at Valiant?
: Matthew
: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/msdolbow
--
Sharon Rogerson
m000...@mc.seflin.org
Lemming
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) sayethed:
>In article <5or7vf$f...@cdc2.cdc.net>, Yuri Gorlinski <yg...@mojo.calyx.net>
>writes:
>> Why? Regardless of what he's planning to do in the future, Icahn has
>>to improve Marvel's financial situation before he can sell... The stock
>>of the small shareholders will go up just like Icahn's will, and Marvel's
>>employees will finally be able to relax in a secure and stable working
>>environment.
>>
>> Where's the harm in Icahn jumping ship once it's been righted? The
>>important thing is that Marvel will get to reestablish its financial
>>security. This certainly sounds preferable to Pereleman's threats of
>>auctioning off Marvel's properties one at a time.
>>
>Because Icahn's history is doing exactly the same thing--selling his
>acquisitions piecemeal. He's not interested in making them profitable
>to anyone but him...and Marvel's already been that. Anything he makes
>from selling the company eventually is profit, given what he reportedly
>paid for the bonds that have now given him control of it.
Then let's skip to the end. What's going to happen to Marvel after it
goes out of business? After Gruenwald died that place is on it's
spiritual last legs, never mind the financial, and I'd bet within a
year or three it'll fall like the House of Usher. What happens then?
Who gets Spiderman and the X-Men? Whether Marvel is a viable entity
or not (and if you've been there recently you know it isn't) people
still want to read about Wolverine and Magneto. Who's around to pick
up the licensing?
>Best, Pat
>The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Lemming
writing portfolio and strange opinions at:
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
I am a British Dog, sir. No one owns me.
Yuri Gorlinski
ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <5oubn6$d...@cdc2.cdc.net>, <yg...@mojo.calyx.net> writes:
: >
: > And there's also no guarantee that Icahn will try the same thing.
:
: But his previous track record indicates that there's a good
: *possibility,* if not a *probability* that he *will* try to break up
: Marvel company-by-company (not character-by-character) in
: the same manner that Perelman's been attempting. IMO, this
: is merely a power struggle for the right to break up Marvel. Wait
: a few months until after the dust settles.
Okay, now I've got a better idea of what you're getting at... But I'm
still not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, Marvel's
current corporate structure is not functioning successfully. Some form of
change is necessary. Personally, I couldn't care less about ToyBiz and
Panini and all of Marvel's other splinter enterprises -- I just want to
read good comics.
Accepting that Marvel will be split up and sold on a company-by-company
basis, why does this have to be viewed as a negative?
: > The inclusion of Mr. Fowlkes on the board of directors is the
: >encouraging bit in all of this. From the little that I know about
: >Fowlkes' time at Valiant and Defiant, he seems to have a pretty
: >good track record.
:
: Mmm-hmm. And how long did Fowlkes and Shooter last
: at Valiant? How long did Defiant last?
: Wonderful track record. Not.
I see your point, but I was really speculating more toward the quality
of the comics themselves... Financially speaking, I believe that the
Fowlkes/Shooter team was very successful at Valiant, before being ousted.
Defiant's failure was in large part due to the inopportune timing of
launching a new line of comics into an already-flooded market.
Be that as it may, I honestly feel that the comics Fowlkes/Shooter
produced at Valiant and Defiant were vastly superior to the bulk of what
Marvel and DC were offering at the time... But that's just my opinion as
a long-time comic book reader. As some of your comments below would seem
to indicate, not everyone shares this opinion...
: > But what's really intriguing is the possibility of Fowlkes bringing
: >Shooter aboard in some sort of editorial capacity.
:
: Only if you want bland, cookie-cutter comics with no personality
: other than Jim Shooter's.
Is that what the Dark Phoenix saga was? Spidey's alien costume story?
If that's what you're referring to then yes, I would be very happy to see
Marvel return to the "bland, cookie-cutter" days of Jim Shooter as EIC.
: As a longtime fan, I remember Jim Shooter's reign of terror. I
: prefer Marvel's current disorganization to his paranoid attitude
< lots of Shooter-bashing snipped >
Question: do you actually read current Marvel comics? I understand
that Shooter's alienated a few people in the past, but I can't see how
anyone but the most vindictive of lifelong DC fans could prefer Marvel's
current disorganization over the cohesive line of comics Shooter's Marvel
produced in its heyday.
: Whether you realize it or not, Shooter drove a *load* of
: creators away from Marvel during his reign of terror because
: of these and similar practices.[1] You might recognize the names
: of many creators who jumped ship; they're DC veterans such
: as Roy Thomas and Marv Wolfman (and, IIRC, John Byrne)
: and mavericks such as Frank Miller -- just to name a few.
I don't know all of the specifics for each of these cases, but I
do know that quality creators have been fleeing Marvel since long before
Shooter ever took charge as EIC. It's all part of the business.
And this trend didn't stop once Shooter left Marvel... During his
tenure as Editor of the X-books, Bob Harras made driving off quality
creators his first order of business. Harras got rid of people like
Chris Claremont, Fabian Nicieza, John Byrne (again), Peter David, Mark
Waid, Alan Davis, and pretty much anyone else who might've had their own
ideas about how to tell a decent story. In their place we now have Scott
Lobdell, Larry Hama, Howard Mackie, and Ben Raab.
Say what you will about Shooter's personality -- at least the man knows
how to evaluate talent.
yg...@calyx.net
Uncensored Communications Group! - http://uncnsrd.mt-kisco.ny.us
Home of Citadel/UX & Hot Pink Amoebas Floating in Vodka
ShutUpRob
In article <5p8lea$m...@cdc2.cdc.net>, Yuri Gorlinski
<yg...@mojo.calyx.net> writes:
> Accepting that Marvel will be split up and sold on a company
>by-company basis, why does this have to be viewed as a negative?
There's no guarantee that he's not going to try to up Marvel's
output of comics a la Perelman in order to artificially inflate
Marvel's market share to make it look good to buyers. Marvel's
120+ titles-a-month output of a few years back is what I'm
talking about. The danger isn't strictly his selling off the
companies, but the *methods* he is capable of using to
make them look good to prospective buyers. I think that
flooding the market with Marvels (again) is a distinct threat.
>: > The inclusion of Mr. Fowlkes on the board of directors is the
>: >encouraging bit in all of this. From the little that I know about
>: >Fowlkes' time at Valiant and Defiant, he seems to have a pretty
>: >good track record.
>:
>: Mmm-hmm. And how long did Fowlkes and Shooter last
>: at Valiant? How long did Defiant last?
>: Wonderful track record. Not.
>
> I see your point, but I was really speculating more toward
>the quality of the comics themselves... Financially speaking,
>I believe that the Fowlkes/Shooter team was very successful
>at Valiant, before being ousted. Defiant's failure was in large
>part due to the inopportune timing of launching a new line of
>comics into an already-flooded market.
That, and the fact that the origin story of their flagship title
was printed as a card set and the fact that the books just
plain sucked.
> Be that as it may, I honestly feel that the comics Fowlkes
>/Shooter produced at Valiant and Defiant were vastly superior
>to the bulk of what Marvel and DC were offering at the time...
>But that's just my opinion as a long-time comic book reader.
>As some of your comments below would seem to indicate,
>not everyone shares this opinion...
To skip to the end of your letter for a moment, you wrote:
> Say what you will about Shooter's personality -- at least
>the man knows how to evaluate talent.
After the artistic failures he produced at Defiant and
Broadway, I'd argue that he's not only lost that ability, but
also lost the ability to bring decent stories out of existing talent.
>: > But what's really intriguing is the possibility of Fowlkes
>: >bringing Shooter aboard in some sort of editorial capacity.
>:
>: Only if you want bland, cookie-cutter comics with no
>: personality other than Jim Shooter's.
>
> Is that what the Dark Phoenix saga was? Spidey's alien
>costume story? If that's what you're referring to then yes, I would
>be very happy to see Marvel return to the "bland, cookie-cutter"
>days of Jim Shooter as EIC.
I consider the DPS, and Claremont's overall run of X-Books to
be one of a few notable exceptions. I consider the Alien Costume
Saga to be bland, cookie-cutter comics -- primarily due to the
inconsistent art teams and art work.
>: As a longtime fan, I remember Jim Shooter's reign of terror. I
>: prefer Marvel's current disorganization to his paranoid attitude
>
> < lots of Shooter-bashing snipped >
>
> Question: do you actually read current Marvel comics?
Yes, I do. About 90% of the current superhero line.
All four of the current monthly Spider-Books, all of the X-Books,
all of Heroes Reborn, and most of the Heroes except for Elektra.
IMO, Shooter-era Valiants and his work at Defiant, while
better than the Marvels during the last four years of his
reign of terror are substantially inferior to the majority of
Marvels being published right now. And that's taking into
consideration the alarming convolution that's hurting the
X-Books. I haven't the slightest interest in seeing Shooter
even risk mucking up what Marvel's rebuilt creatively since
he left.
>I understand that Shooter's alienated a few people in the past,
>but I can't see how anyone but the most vindictive of lifelong
>DC fans could prefer Marvel's current disorganization over the
>cohesive line of comics Shooter's Marvel produced in its heyday.
Simple. IMO, Marvel's comics in Shooter's heyday, with the
exception of Claremont's X-Men, Miller's Elektra and Byrne's FF
-- not to mention his short second wind at Valiant --were inferior
to much of what is coming out of Marvel *and* DC today. I
consider his Valiant reign to be superior to both the later years
of his Marvel reign and the junk he produced under both the
Defiant and Broadway labels. I also consider his Defiant
and Broadway junk to be inferior to even his later Marvel junk.
I've been reading and collecting titles from both (and most
other) publishers since 1980. The first four titles that I collected
were Micronauts, Legion of Super-Heroes, Fantastic Four and
New Teen Titans. I don't profess any loyalty to one publisher
over another. I do, however, despise the paranoia of Shooter's
reign for turning Vinnie Colletta into a hack inker, for Kickers
Inc., Spitfire and the other phenomenally *bad* New Universe
books that were printed before Peter David and Fabian Nicieza
got their hands on them[1], for reviving Jean Grey and therefore
trashing the Dark Phoenix Saga[2], for cutting Amazing Heroes
off from news coverage due to -- among other causes -- the
TCJ's justifiably relentless criticism of the Jack Kirby art
controversy and for just plain putting out *bad* comics.
>: Whether you realize it or not, Shooter drove a *load* of
>: creators away from Marvel during his reign of terror because
>: of these and similar practices. You might recognize the names
>: of many creators who jumped ship; they're DC veterans such
>: as Roy Thomas and Marv Wolfman (and, IIRC, John Byrne)
>: and mavericks such as Frank Miller -- just to name a few.
>
> I don't know all of the specifics for each of these cases, but I
>do know that quality creators have been fleeing Marvel since
>long before Shooter ever took charge as EIC. It's all part of the
>business.
A certain amount of employee movement is the name of
the game in any field, especially a freelance-based one like
comics, but creators didn't leave a financially healthy company
like Marvel was at the time like they did when Shooter was
EIC. Shooter alienated a lot of creators in an unusually short
period of time. If he were to return to Marvel, he would be a
liability that such a financially troubled company, much less
the fans, cannot afford.
> And this trend didn't stop once Shooter left Marvel... During his
>tenure as Editor of the X-books, Bob Harras made driving off quality
>creators his first order of business. Harras got rid of people like
>Chris Claremont, Fabian Nicieza, John Byrne (again), Peter David,
>Mark Waid, Alan Davis, and pretty much anyone else who might've
>had their own ideas about how to tell a decent story. In their place
>we now have Scott Lobdell, Larry Hama, Howard Mackie, and Ben
>Raab.
Larry Hama's been doing work for Marvel as a former editor
and writer since well before Shooter left. Howard Mackie is
a former editor who assisted Mark Gruenwald well before
Shooter left. IMO, Scott Lobdell does a good job when he puts
his mind to it and doesn't over-extend himself. Ben Raab is
a flawed newbie spun off the current editorial pool who I think
nevertheless shows promise as a writer.
Peter David's still writing the Hulk and will be writing Heroes
Return, Mark Waid writes Ka-Zar[3], Alan Davis will be the
penciller on Fantastic Four, John Byrne submitted a proposal
for the Heroes Return FF that was turned down but is still an
indicator of his willingness to work with Marvel when his
schedule allows and they're *still* talking to Claremont about
coming back to the X-Books. While Harras has ticked a bunch
of people off in the past, he's demonstrated an uncanny ability
to at least get them to put aside their differences to do other
work for him. Shooter is still a person who alienates people.
-- Rob Jensen
[1] DP7, however, was always pretty darn good. But I chalk
that up to Gruenwald having the pull to do his own thing.
[2] Yes, Claremont and Byrne went along with it, but it
was Shooter and Layton's idea. And, because of tampering
with Byrne's chapter in the storyline, it was an indirect reason
for Byrne's leaving the FF.
[3] Actually, Mark Waid left the X-Books due to a personality
conflict with Scott Lobdell. Harras had nothing to do with it other
than being EIC.
PatDOneill
In article <ECKFt...@nonexistent.com>, lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming)
writes:
>Then let's skip to the end. What's going to happen to Marvel after it
>goes out of business? After Gruenwald died that place is on it's
>spiritual last legs, never mind the financial, and I'd bet within a
>year or three it'll fall like the House of Usher. What happens then?
>Who gets Spiderman and the X-Men? Whether Marvel is a viable entity
>or not (and if you've been there recently you know it isn't) people
>still want to read about Wolverine and Magneto. Who's around to pick
>up the licensing?
Marvel won't go out of business....but, in the end, it will be a
significantly
smaller entity, or the comics-publishing arm of a media conglomerate
that wants the business for the licensing possibilities. (Sort of what
DC is to Time Warner.) Problem is, most media conglomerates are
not as laissez-faire about such entities as TW has so far been with DC.
Who will wind up with Marvel, the comics publisher? (I suspect "Marvel
the everything else" (film/TV studio, card company, etc.) will be closed
up or sold off.)
I'm betting on two different entities: News Corp. (Murdoch's company,
parent of Fox) or Viacom (parent of Paramount).
Tom Galloway
In article <19970701003...@ladder02.news.aol.com> shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>got their hands on them[1], for reviving Jean Grey and therefore
>trashing the Dark Phoenix Saga[2], for cutting Amazing Heroes
>was Shooter and Layton's idea. And, because of tampering
Not quite. Here's excerpts from a post Kurt Busiek made about the return
of Jean Grey:
:The idea that Jean and Phoenix were two separate beings was planted
:by Chris, late in the Phoenix saga -- he made a reference to it in a
:caption or two, as I recall.
:
:Back when the death issue occurred, I wasn't yet a pro, and a couple
:of friends (Richard Howell and Carol Kalish) and I spent an evening of
:fannish amusement coming up with ways to resurrect Jean that ducked the
:rumored Shooter-edict that Jean couldn't be brought back unless she
:was somehow made not guilty of her crimes.
:...
:
:Later, after I'd broken in, I was chatting with Roger Stern, and the
:talk turned to Jean. Roger mentioned that he'd love to see her back,
:but there was no way around the Shooter edict (which was more than
:rumor, it seems). I told him my idea, and he liked it a lot.
:
:Jump ahead to years later; Bob Layton, with some help from Jim Shooter,
:has come up with a pitch for X-FACTOR, one which does not include Jean,
:because she's dead. However, upon hearing about it, John Byrne calls
:Bob and suggests my resurrection concept, which he'd heard about through
:Roger. Far from disagreeing with it, it was John who was the first to
:suggest making it more than my idle imaginings. Bob liked the idea,
:and apparently so did Shooter and X-FACTOR editor Mike Carlin, because
:it was approved, and John, Bob and Roger cooked up the 3-part return
:of Jean story that appeared in AVENGERS, FF and X-FACTOR.
:...
:I believe John's objection to that issue was not to the resurrection
:of Jean, but to some rewrites and re-drawings that were done after
:he turned his part of the story in.
:
:So that's the story. It wasn't Shooter's decree. It wasn't Bob Layton's
:idea. It was a fan-generated idea, based on what I saw as contextual
:evidence that supported it, that grew beyond its original parameters,
:and got made into reality when John Byrne suggested actually doing it,
:and the Powers That Be went for it.
tyg t...@netcom.com
ShutUpRob
In article <tygECM...@netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway)
writes:
[Kurt Busiek wrote, a while ago:]
>:Jump ahead to years later; Bob Layton, with some help from Jim Shooter,
>:has come up with a pitch for X-FACTOR, one which does not include Jean,
>:because she's dead. However, upon hearing about it, John Byrne calls
>:Bob and suggests my resurrection concept, which he'd heard about through
>:Roger. Far from disagreeing with it, it was John who was the first to
>:suggest making it more than my idle imaginings. Bob liked the idea,
>:and apparently so did Shooter and X-FACTOR editor Mike Carlin, because
>:it was approved, and John, Bob and Roger cooked up the 3-part return
>:of Jean story that appeared in AVENGERS, FF and X-FACTOR.
Damn. I saved that post, too.
Okay. Strike that complaint against Shooter from the record.
Now I have a reason to be ticked at Claremont & Byrne. :)
-- Rob Jensen
==================================================
"Psst! TNT has picked up Babylon 5 for its final season! Pass it on!
Kory Yorke
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
The later years of his Marvel reign would include Roger Stern/J.R. jr.
Amazing Spider-Man. I can't believe you consider this to be
cookie-cutter comics. I think this run is among the best the Spider
books has ever seen. It is way better than any Spider book I've seen
in the 90's. If Shooter could restore that level of junkiness to the
Marvel line I might be picking up more than 3 Marvel books.
Kory Yorke
ShutUpRob
In article <5pdn7n$47e$1...@thor.atcon.com>, kyo...@atcon.com (Kory Yorke)
writes:
>
>The later years of his Marvel reign would include Roger Stern/J.R. jr.
>Amazing Spider-Man. I can't believe you consider this to be
>cookie-cutter comics. I think this run is among the best the Spider
>books has ever seen.
Yep. I consider this run (I'm presuming circa ASM #238, around
the original Hobgoblin stories), to be cookie cutter because of JRjr's
art and in spite of Stern's strong storytelling. JRjr's style hadn't
clicked yet and was quite bland. I attribute the series' palatibility
to Joe Rubenstein's inks, which homogenized JRjr's neophyte
pencilling into something presentable, but not outstanding.
> It is way better than any Spider book I've seen
>in the 90's.
I disagree. I prefer what Mackie and JRjr are doing right
now with Adjectiveless and what DeMatteis and Ross are
doing with Spectacular (in spite of the reappearance of the
Kangaroo and those other lame villains -- except the Spot.)
> If Shooter could restore that level of junkiness to the
>Marvel line I might be picking up more than 3 Marvel books.
I'm picking up all but Elektra, Ghost Rider, What If? and
the Star Trek line myself, which is the highest percentage of
Marvel's (about 80%) I've been buying since long before
Shooter left and a remarkable change since January of
1996 or so when I was only buying the X-Books. I have
to give Marvel a lot of credit for having that effect on me
in such a short period of time when I haven't had a comic
store employee's discount (40% off or so) for six years.