[NEWS] Marvel gets a breather
Mark Steven Long
The following wire report appeared in today's edition of NEWSDAY:
TO THE RESCUE. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., which defaulted on
$650 million in loans, said lenders permitted it to draw the remaining
$15 million from its credit line to pay bills. Marvel also said it's seeking
another $130 million from lenders to finance investments and for working
capital.
That's the arfticle in its entirety. If anyone has more information, please
post. Thank you.
Mark Steven Long
(This is a personal message, not a company letter.)
David J. Warner
Mark Steven Long <m...@gumby.oup-usa.org> wrote:
>The following wire report appeared in today's edition of NEWSDAY:
>
>TO THE RESCUE. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., which defaulted on
>$650 million in loans, said lenders permitted it to draw the remaining
>$15 million from its credit line to pay bills. Marvel also said it's seeking
> another $130 million from lenders to finance investments and for working
>capital.
Not another quarter drawn, and none given. =^)
>That's the article in its entirety. If anyone has more information, please
>post. Thank you.
Don't have info, but I've TONS of speculation (which is all this and a lot
of other discussions are around here, anyway):
I was chatting with the clerk at my local comic shop, and he is of the
firm belief that Marvel will never go under, because its characters are
just too damn popular. He believes the worst that will happen is that
they'll have to cut back to 4 Spidey-books, 7 X-books, and MAYBE Jim
Lee's half of Gyros Reborn and the occassional mini-series, but even so,
Marvel would survive on inertia alone. He backed this up by saying that
sales figures for last month's Uncanny X-Men were TRIPLE that of Spawn.
("441,000-something. Marvel isn't going anywhere.")
He is of the firm belief that IMAGE will collapse before Marvel, simply
because 1.) the egos are getting in the way of actual comic production,
and 2.) the death of the speculator trend wiould wipe out half their
titles. Wildstorm/Homage, Top Cow and MAYBE McFarlane would survive on
their production alone, but everyone else would either fall off or be
forced to find another publisher.
With that in mind, the betting table is open. Who falls first, Marvel or
Image? Oddsmakers are welcome to speculate on the outcome.
--
------------------- |*************THE BUCKTOWN TIMELINE HOMEPAGE*************
David J. Warner | A Generation X(tm) fan-fiction thread
manc...@netcom.com | gone COMPLETELY out of control
------------------- |-*NEW SITE*---->http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4234<-----
Andrew Hall
m...@gumby.oup-usa.org (Mark Steven Long) wrote:
>The following wire report appeared in today's edition of NEWSDAY:
>
>TO THE RESCUE. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., which defaulted on
>$650 million in loans, said lenders permitted it to draw the remaining
>$15 million from its credit line to pay bills. Marvel also said it's seeking
> another $130 million from lenders to finance investments and for working
>capital.
>
>post. Thank you.
>
>Mark Steven Long
>(This is a personal message, not a company letter.)
Sounds like someones trying to give CPR to a corpse.
Andy
*Sig wasting space*
Soundwave
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:02:07 GMT, manc...@netcom.com (David J. Warner)
wrote:
>He is of the firm belief that IMAGE will collapse before Marvel, simply
>because 1.) the egos are getting in the way of actual comic production,
>and 2.) the death of the speculator trend wiould wipe out half their
>titles. Wildstorm/Homage, Top Cow and MAYBE McFarlane would survive on
>their production alone, but everyone else would either fall off or be
>forced to find another publisher.
>
>With that in mind, the betting table is open. Who falls first, Marvel or
>Image? Oddsmakers are welcome to speculate on the outcome.
Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
simply roll over and die.
I would express concern over the possibility that some of Marvel's
quality books would be lost if the cutback-mania gets out of hand, but
recently, the two concepts of Marvel and quality books have been
mutually exclusive, so I don't see any problems there.
Look at it this way: It's taken decades for Marvel to get into the
trouble they're in now; Image, on the other hand, has been in one sort
of "trouble" or another almost from the day it was founded. Neither
company puts out what I consider top-notch books, but Marvel's sheer
volume, and the proven durability of it's characters, will carry the
day.
Soundwave
David J. Warner
Soundwave <soun...@oxford.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:02:07 GMT, manc...@netcom.com (David J. Warner)
>wrote:
>
>>He is of the firm belief that IMAGE will collapse before Marvel, simply
>>because 1.) the egos are getting in the way of actual comic production,
>>and 2.) the death of the speculator trend wiould wipe out half their
>>titles. Wildstorm/Homage, Top Cow and MAYBE McFarlane would survive on
>>their production alone, but everyone else would either fall off or be
>>forced to find another publisher.
>>
>>With that in mind, the betting table is open. Who falls first, Marvel or
>>Image? Oddsmakers are welcome to speculate on the outcome.
>
>Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
>doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
>may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
>than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
>simply roll over and die.
You realize, of course, that this means Harras, Lobdell, Mackie, DeFalco
and Kavanaugh will be plotting and scripting ALL of those 10 or so books,
right?
>I would express concern over the possibility that some of Marvel's
>quality books would be lost if the cutback-mania gets out of hand, but
>recently, the two concepts of Marvel and quality books have been
>mutually exclusive, so I don't see any problems there.
Heh.
Jeff Brown
David J. Warner wrote:
> He is of the firm belief that IMAGE will collapse before Marvel
I don't know about THAT - last I heard Image was privately held and didn't
default on $650 million of loans AND didn't operate at a loss. Image has its
problems, but being at the mercy of Wall Street isn't one of them.
It's probably true that Spiderman and the Xmen will be around longer than Spawn,
but that doesn't mean that they'll be published by Marvel.
Jeff
jwil...@aol.com
In article <584kqu$6...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>, soun...@oxford.net
(Soundwave) writes:
>Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
>doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
>may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
>than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
>simply roll over and die.
If Marvel keeps their profit mentality dont be sure that the Spiderbooks
and X-books would be cancelled. They would most likely keep their top
sellers and drop the others (ie. Journey into Mystery, which I dont like
but has history with Marvel, Punisher, possibly Daredevil, etc.) who
knows. I don't have Marvel's breakdown of how many issues sold a month
like Previews gives for their Diamond Dateline (i think thats unaccurate
too but it is better than nothing)
Until later
John
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -
Oscar Wilde
Steven Grant
> >Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
> >doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
> >may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
> >than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
> >simply roll over and die.
Um... you do realize the proper term is "dinosaur," not "behemoth."
From what I know of the relative finances of the various divisions of Image
and those of Marvel, I certainly wouldn't place any bets that Image will
collapse before Marvel will. Things look very very bad for Marvel right
now, especially impending debt payments due, combined with a debt crushing
enough that others will be loathe to step in with financing, combined with
pretty much as much merchandising saturation as they're likely to get,
combined with all Marvel's sister companies being in deep, deep trouble,
too. The Image divisions may not be the healthiest they've ever been, but
Jim Lee and Todd McFarlane in particular are doing okay, and no Image
division has the enormous weight of problems that Marvel has.
I wouldn't say for sure that Marvel is going away, but they're in some
very, very rough waters.
Bart Gerardi
Soundwave wrote:
> ... but Marvel's sheer volume, and the proven durability of it's
> characters, will carry the day.
Well, let's examine the characters, as these really are the
'raw materials' for future growth and existence. As much as
I am not a Marvelite, I think they have the edge when it comes
to interesting, innovative (some of the X-Men were as innovative
as any other comic character...) and long-standing characters.
Image has Spawn, and I'll admit, Spawn is a decently original
character with a strong following. Gen13 might be the same
way. Beyond that, I think the Image characters are of lesser
quality than Marvel (I am not referring to Homage, BTW.) Note,
I said characters, not talent...
Bart
--
=======================================================
Bart Gerardi ger...@mail.dec.com
Finance IS 508 493 0845
Digital Equipment Trustno1
=======================================================
Andy Adsetts
Bart Gerardi <Ger...@mail.dec.com> wrote:
>Soundwave wrote:
>> ... but Marvel's sheer volume, and the proven durability of it's
>> characters, will carry the day.
>Well, let's examine the characters, as these really are the
>'raw materials' for future growth and existence. As much as
>I am not a Marvelite, I think they have the edge when it comes
>to interesting, innovative (some of the X-Men were as innovative
>as any other comic character...) and long-standing characters.
[snip]
As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
And if so, how are they valued? The long established characters are
definitely what keeps a comics giant like Marvel viable, but how much
value do you attribute to a character like Spiderman etc.
Are they listed in any way on Marvels balance sheet?
Andy
Jim Welch
In article <586t8r$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, ads...@ix.netcom.com
(Andy Adsetts) wrote:
I can't say how Marvel promotes their characters as assets but you can be
sure they do. This would be a form of goodwill which is considered intangible
but definitely considered when buying. The biggies for Marvel would include
not just the X-Men and Spider-Man but also Captain America, The Hulk, and
Marvel itself. These are all things recognized by the non-comics consumer.
I think Marvel will still be with us for quite a number of years. It might
change hands but even if the new buyer was another comic company like Time-
Warner, I think they would maintain the Marvel name.
Jim
David H.
>Mark Steven Long <m...@gumby.oup-usa.org> wrote:
>>The following wire report appeared in today's edition of NEWSDAY:
>>
>>TO THE RESCUE. Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., which defaulted on
>>$650 million in loans, said lenders permitted it to draw the remaining
>>$15 million from its credit line to pay bills. Marvel also said it's seeking
>> another $130 million from lenders to finance investments and for working
>>capital.
>
>Not another quarter drawn, and none given. =^)
>
>>That's the article in its entirety. If anyone has more information, please
>>post. Thank you.
>
>Don't have info, but I've TONS of speculation (which is all this and a lot
>of other discussions are around here, anyway):
>
>I was chatting with the clerk at my local comic shop, and he is of the
>firm belief that Marvel will never go under, because its characters are
>just too damn popular. He believes the worst that will happen is that
>they'll have to cut back to 4 Spidey-books, 7 X-books, and MAYBE Jim
>Lee's half of Gyros Reborn and the occassional mini-series, but even so,
>Marvel would survive on inertia alone. He backed this up by saying that
>sales figures for last month's Uncanny X-Men were TRIPLE that of Spawn.
>("441,000-something. Marvel isn't going anywhere.")
>
I can't inagine that Marvel cancel ANY of the X-books or Spidey books.
They are Marvel's best sellers. During their last re-organization
(which moved most Marvel comics into "groups" including the X-Men,
Spidey and Heroes groups), they basically decided to VASTLY expand the
X-Men and Spidey titles with new series and LOTS of new mini-series,
while drastically cutting back on all other titles.
I suspect that they will just do more of the same. Most other Marvel
comics will be cancelled. They'll probably keep the Heroes Reborn
comics, though they come back to the main MU and they may give
Liefeld's books to someone else. After all, along with Spidey, the
X-Men and Hulk, these are their signature heroes and trademarks. At
the same time, expect to see LOTS more mini-series, particularly X-Men
ones. After all, they ALL sell well, and it gives them LOTS more #1's
and #2's which always sell better. It's a great short-term fix, which
is what they need right now.
Of course, in the long-term, it will probably hurt Marvel more. As it
starts to cost $10-20 per WEEK to keep up with the latest goings-on in
just ONE set of characters (like the X-Men), more and more people will
decide that it's just not worth it. They'll drop the whole line --
and possibly ALL comics.
DC and Marvel already learned this lesson with several of their lesser
groups -- Justice League, Green Lantern, Punisher, Ghost Rider, all of
which were best sellers, until they expanded beyond the interest in
them. The question is whether they learn this lesson too late!
David H.
Friends don't let friends buy Packard Bell computers!
The Saint -- Gary St. Lawrence
soun...@oxford.net (Soundwave) wrote:
}Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
}doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
}may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
}than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
}simply roll over and die.
I would prefer to see Marvel go back to its core of titles, and stop
wasting time trying to constantly outdo itself and other publishers in
terms of endless crossovers, multi-titles, and nonsense like the
hype-driven Heroes Reborn.
One character, one title.
Then we revive the anthology titles like Marvel Superheroes, Marvel
Two-In-One, Marvel Premiere, etc. When a team-up or crossover is
necessary, that's where we'd get them.
New characters? Certainly. Always. But let's stop trying to fool
readers into believing that every new character will revolutionize and
reinvent the comics industrty. What's wrong with a new character
simply adding to the existing greatness of the medium?
Gimmick covers, multiple titles, billion-part all-title crossovers
should be something SPECIAL and used VERY SPARINGLY. They shouldn't be
depended on as the crux of the industry moreso than the simple comic
book itself.
I wish Don McLean were alive so he could write and record
"American Pie II: The Day The Comics Died."
Saint.
The Saint -- Gary St. Lawrence
dav...@ix.netcom.com (David H.) wrote:
}Of course, in the long-term, it will probably hurt Marvel more. As it
}starts to cost $10-20 per WEEK to keep up with the latest goings-on in
}just ONE set of characters (like the X-Men), more and more people will
}decide that it's just not worth it. They'll drop the whole line --
}and possibly ALL comics.
}DC and Marvel already learned this lesson with several of their lesser
}groups -- Justice League, Green Lantern, Punisher, Ghost Rider, all of
}which were best sellers, until they expanded beyond the interest in
}them. The question is whether they learn this lesson too late!
Well, that's the real question for each of us, isn't it?
I literally grew up reading and relishing Spider-Man. But as one
Spider-title turned into seven, I eventually got just SO disgusted
with the endless drivel Marvel pumped out to milk Spider-Man to it's
revenue maximum, I ultimately dropped all Spider titles except for
Kurt's Untold Tales, which is currently the only Spider book that even
remotely resembles what I loved as a kid.
Likewise with any and all X-titles. Back when there was simply "The
X-Men," I loved it, through many writers and artists. But when the X
began to equal a $, I got similarly disgusted and have dropped
X-everything. I haven't even gone back to try the Classic Tales title,
because the rewrites of what I remember, as evidenced on the covers,
simply didn't interest me.
Each of us has to reach our personal limit of how much drivel we're
willing to accept in the hopes that some miniscule morsel of quality
and entertainment might fall through the business cracks and actually
make it into a comic we read.
Saint.
kent travis lorenz
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, The Saint -- Gary St. Lawrence wrote:
> soun...@oxford.net (Soundwave) wrote:
>
> }Image will definitely collapse before Marvel, and to be honest, I
> }doubt Marvel will ever fall. Cutbacks are definitely in the cards (we
> }may have to put up with only (*gasp*) four Spiderman books and less
> }than a half-dozen X-books), but it's just too much of a behemoth to
> }simply roll over and die.
>
> I would prefer to see Marvel go back to its core of titles, and stop
> wasting time trying to constantly outdo itself and other publishers in
> terms of endless crossovers, multi-titles, and nonsense like the
> hype-driven Heroes Reborn.
> One character, one title.
AMEN, Brother Saint!! Maybe if there was only one regular Spider-Man
title, they wouldn't have run out of good stories and came up with the
clone crap. Amazing Spider-Man could easily tell the stories of
Spider-Man without three other titles. I would have to keep UTOS,
though. I like the idea of telling those stories that fill in continuity
and tell some really great stories.
> Then we revive the anthology titles like Marvel Superheroes, Marvel
> Two-In-One, Marvel Premiere, etc. When a team-up or crossover is
> necessary, that's where we'd get them.
Yes! This is a great idea. The titles could showcase various
established talents as well as new talents in the industry. We could
keep an eye on the second-stringers in some of these titles and keep
unnecessary crossovers and mini-series from popping up.
> New characters? Certainly. Always. But let's stop trying to fool
> readers into believing that every new character will revolutionize and
> reinvent the comics industrty. What's wrong with a new character
> simply adding to the existing greatness of the medium?
> Gimmick covers, multiple titles, billion-part all-title crossovers
> should be something SPECIAL and used VERY SPARINGLY. They shouldn't be
> depended on as the crux of the industry moreso than the simple comic
> book itself.
> I wish Don McLean were alive so he could write and record
> "American Pie II: The Day The Comics Died."
>
I couldn't agree with you more on these points, Saint. At least they've
cut back on the gimmick covers. Maybe they need to take a look at what
DC is doing. Putting out quality books and making a steady climb in
popularity. They don't rely on gimmick covers or Heroes Reborn hype.
For the most part, their multiple titles are used pretty sparingly.
However, they do seem to love those billion-part all-title crossovers,
don't they?
Kent
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Andy Adsetts (ads...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
: characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets. Assets on
the balance sheet must be reported as the value paid for them less an
adjustment for amortization. This is called the historical cost principle.
This is to prevent companies from arbitrarily inflating asset values.
Development can be listed as assets if you're talking about Intel's costs
on a Pentium chip, but I'm not sure if comic book characters would met
the criteria for that - I would think they don't (I don't feel like
looking it up :))
Blue Beetle should probably be an asset on DC's balance sheet,* but not
Batman, because Blue Beetle was purchased while Batman was not. Plastic
Man should have been an asset a long time ago, since it was purchased,
but patents, copyrights and trademarks must be written off over time,
maximum 17 years for some things, 40 for others.
And why am I writing so much to a Marvel "Zombie"? :) :)
--
Vincent
*Might be fully amortized by now.
patdo...@aol.com
In article <58d2le$h...@ns2.ryerson.ca>, vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent
Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>Blue Beetle should probably be an asset on DC's balance sheet,* but not
>Batman, because Blue Beetle was purchased while Batman was not.
Excuse me? Batman certainly WAS purchased. It may have been purchased 57
years ago and for a pittance of what it eventually became worth, but it
was purchased.
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.
Vince Yim
Jim Welch wrote:
> I think Marvel will still be with us for quite a number of years. It might
> change hands but even if the new buyer was another comic company like Time-
> Warner, I think they would maintain the Marvel name.
I don't know about you or anyone else, but it seems to me that these
past few months of Marvel getting help and cutting cost and downsizing
and dipping into the $15M left in the bank seems fruitless.
If one would like a comparison, I see it as using a hair blow dryer to
dry an ice cube.
Peace,
Vince Yim
--
(
Question of the week: \ From Vince Yim
Why is there an expiration date on SOUR cream? ) yim...@unbc.edu
/
Mike Chary
<patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Blue Beetle should probably be an asset on DC's balance sheet,* but not
>>Batman, because Blue Beetle was purchased while Batman was not.
>
>Excuse me? Batman certainly WAS purchased. It may have been purchased 57
>years ago and for a pittance of what it eventually became worth, but it
>was purchased.
>
My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
bargain.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"Logic is like the sword: those who appeal to it shall perish by it."
-- Samuel Butler
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." -- Roger Bacon
The Enigmatic C.
manc...@netcom.com (David J. Warner) wrote:
>I was chatting with the clerk at my local comic shop, and he is of the
>firm belief that Marvel will never go under, because its characters are
>just too damn popular. He believes the worst that will happen is that
>they'll have to cut back to 4 Spidey-books, 7 X-books, and MAYBE Jim
>Lee's half of Gyros Reborn and the occassional mini-series, but even so,
>Marvel would survive on inertia alone. He backed this up by saying that
>sales figures for last month's Uncanny X-Men were TRIPLE that of Spawn.
>("441,000-something. Marvel isn't going anywhere.")
Not to be the young upstart that I know I am, but this is pretty much
completly bullshit. For starters, Good Businessmen and Comic Shop owners
tend to be "mutually exclusive". So, almost any business advice Comic Shop
owners give you will most likely be really really wrong.
We actually know now, that after returns of over 100,000 copies, the actual
copies-sold of Uncanny is about 320,000 copies or so. And that's Uncanny
X-Men. The best selling comic at the company. To produce the best selling
comic at Marvel, they incured 650 million dollars in debt. Compare this to
the "trouble" that Image has been in since it's inception. Aside from
kicking Liefeld out, every studio there (save Larsen) is putting out more
books, or refining the books that they've got. In fact, with McFarlane
selling a scary number of books with much much much less overhead, who do
you think is more financially secure? Same with, to an extent, Lee, Larsen,
and Silvestri. Heck, even the with all the (unproven, sometimes slanderous)
allegations aginst Liefeld, HE seems far more financially secure than
Marvel.
>He is of the firm belief that IMAGE will collapse before Marvel, simply
>because 1.) the egos are getting in the way of actual comic production,
>and 2.) the death of the speculator trend wiould wipe out half their
>titles. Wildstorm/Homage, Top Cow and MAYBE McFarlane would survive on
>their production alone, but everyone else would either fall off or be
>forced to find another publisher.
Excuse me, but the above is a continuation of the earlier bullshit. There
are no longer "ego" problems, and everyone is working together on getting
the books out, and into a "shared" universe. With Rob gone and the addition
of tons of great new B&W books, things are actually looking better. As for
the second point (ie: the "death" of the speculator trend), even you have
to admit the speculator trend ended about two years ago. It's dead. there
are no more speculators. That's why the Market Crashed.
>With that in mind, the betting table is open. Who falls first, Marvel or
>Image? Oddsmakers are welcome to speculate on the outcome.
I really have to wonder what kind of Crack your shop owner is smoking. The
statements he's making seem to be completly out of touch with (not only
reality, but) the market. I don't think either company will "fall". Marvel
will go bankrupt, and the characters will be sold off and there will be
more comics with Marvel characters. The characters will never really
"cease" to exist. However, the current incarnation of Perlman-Marvel? Well,
if that's what you're talking about, I give it 5 months, at the absoloute
most.
C.
(Who wonders how expensive it's gonna be to Fed-Ex Boxes of Marvel Comics
to every store in Canada).
I've grown so close to you boy,
and You've just grown boy.
I said come over, come over,
and I smiled at you Boy.
- Underworld(with help) "Born Slippy"
patdo...@aol.com
In article <58fjld$m...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
>character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
>bargain.
DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part of
the contract with Kane.
Mike Chary
<patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>
>>My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
>>character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
>>bargain.
>
>DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part of
>the contract with Kane.
If you are claiming that hiring Kane to design a character constitutes
buying the character rights, you are living in a haze of sophistry. If
you are saying that the contract specified that the character belonged to
Kane and DC would pay him for it, I don't think that's the case, but I
don't know. I think Mark Evanier would know, however, so I'll attract his
attention.
Mark Evanier
Someone (I can't tell who) writes:
>My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
>character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
>bargain.
Then fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part
>of the contract with Kane.
>If you are claiming that hiring Kane to design a character constitutes
>buying the character rights, you are living in a haze of sophistry. If
>you are saying that the contract specified that the character belonged
>to Kane and DC would pay him for it, I don't think that's the case,
>but I don't know. I think Mark Evanier would know, however, so I'll
>attract his attention.
ME: Kane's special deal on BATMAN was not negotiated at the time of the
character's creation. When the first story appeared, Kane was working
under the same deal as everyone else, which means that he was paid a
flat fee per page, and the company took the position that they owned
all rights of every kind to whatever was depicted on those pages.
Several years later, Siegel and Shuster, who had done SUPERMAN under
essentially the same arrangement, filed a lawsuit that claimed that the
terms were ambiguous and unfair. Shortly after this suit was filed,
Kane renegotiated his arrangement with DC. The exact details are not
public knowledge but there are those who say that Kane threatened
either to ally with Siegel and Shuster, or to file the same kind of
lawsuit, and that DC felt they could not fight both suits at once, so
they gave Kane a better deal than he'd had. Later, Kane renegotiated
at least one more time.
Does that clarify things for everyone?
patdo...@aol.com
In article <58hebe$3...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>If you are claiming that hiring Kane to design a character constitutes
>buying the character rights, you are living in a haze of sophistry.
They bought something from Kane, right? Kane gets credit for creating the
character, his name (and his alone) appeared on it for 25 years.
Sounds to me like DC knew that the rights to the character somehow
attached to Bob Kane.
patdo...@aol.com
Mike Chary
Me :)
>>My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
>>character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
>>bargain.
>
>Then fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
This here is Pat.
>>DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part
>>of the contract with Kane.
This is me.
>>If you are claiming that hiring Kane to design a character constitutes
>>buying the character rights, you are living in a haze of sophistry. If
>>you are saying that the contract specified that the character belonged
>>to Kane and DC would pay him for it, I don't think that's the case,
>>but I don't know. I think Mark Evanier would know, however, so I'll
>>attract his attention.
>
>ME: Kane's special deal on BATMAN was not negotiated at the time of the
>character's creation. When the first story appeared, Kane was working
>under the same deal as everyone else, which means that he was paid a
>flat fee per page, and the company took the position that they owned
>all rights of every kind to whatever was depicted on those pages.
>
>Several years later, Siegel and Shuster, who had done SUPERMAN under
>essentially the same arrangement, filed a lawsuit that claimed that the
>terms were ambiguous and unfair. Shortly after this suit was filed,
>Kane renegotiated his arrangement with DC. The exact details are not
>public knowledge but there are those who say that Kane threatened
>either to ally with Siegel and Shuster, or to file the same kind of
>lawsuit, and that DC felt they could not fight both suits at once, so
>they gave Kane a better deal than he'd had. Later, Kane renegotiated
>at least one more time.
>
>Does that clarify things for everyone?
So Kane was *not* hired to create a Batman type character?
Mark Evanier
In <58huma$j...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu
(Mike Chary) writes:
>
>So Kane was *not* hired to create a Batman type character?
ME: Well, it depends on who you believe. He says that he knew there
was a market for costumed adventure characters, so he sat down and came
up with the concept. There are others who say that he sat down with
Bill Finger and that they jointly came up with the concept. And there
are those who claim that the editors at DC gave Kane a vague idea of
the kind of character they wanted and then he (or he and Finger) came
up with Batman.
Like most great ideas, there is no shortage of people who have a
version that gives them more credit. And I doubt it's possible to
distill them down more than this. Still, I don't think it has been
claimed that anyone at DC came up with the suggestion of a guy in a bat
suit.
Kevin J. Maroney
sa...@goodnet.com (The Saint -- Gary St. Lawrence) wrote:
> I wish Don McLean were alive so he could write and record
>"American Pie II: The Day The Comics Died."
Unless it happened very recently, Don McLean has not died.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Daniel Angers
kent travis lorenz wrote:
> I couldn't agree with you more on these points, Saint. At least they've
> cut back on the gimmick covers. Maybe they need to take a look at what
> DC is doing.
Like having a thousand of bat and supe-titles ?
Dan
Mike Chary
Mark Evanier <eva...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(Mike Chary) writes:
>>
>>So Kane was *not* hired to create a Batman type character?
>
>ME: Well, it depends on who you believe. He says that he knew there
I believe you :)
>was a market for costumed adventure characters, so he sat down and came
>up with the concept. There are others who say that he sat down with
>Bill Finger and that they jointly came up with the concept. And there
>are those who claim that the editors at DC gave Kane a vague idea of
>the kind of character they wanted and then he (or he and Finger) came
>up with Batman.
My memory is that someone told me Kane was hired to create Batman.
(Actually, I thought it was either you, Julie Schwarz, or Kane,
himself, via an interview.)
>Like most great ideas, there is no shortage of people who have a
>version that gives them more credit. And I doubt it's possible to
>distill them down more than this. Still, I don't think it has been
>claimed that anyone at DC came up with the suggestion of a guy in a bat
>suit.
Definitely not. The story I got was on the tails of the success of
Superman, DC wanted another costumed character and hired Kane to come up
with one.
Mark Evanier
In <58i6fh$p...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu
(Mike Chary) writes:
>
>Definitely not. The story I got was on the tails of the success of
>Superman, DC wanted another costumed character and hired Kane to come
>up with one.
ME: Well, we're down to a matter of semantics here. Superman was a
hit. Everyone was scrambling about to create more costumed characters.
I don't think DC actually hired Kane to create something. It was
probably more a matter of, "Hey, Bob...we're looking for more costumed
characters. If you have an idea for one, you could make some money."
And then Kane went off and, with or without Finger, came up with the
basis of Batman. The DC editors may have had a little more input than
that, but probably not a huge amount.
srowe...@aol.com
Let me add this; from what I heard Kane signed the same statement as
Siegel and the others; but that this was found to be invalid, because he
was a minor. So, he could not sign his rights away (without his parent's
consent). His contract was redone in((let's see 68-25 =)1943?. He had
advice then.
I have heard some other things about this contract.
There is a reason that Kane retired in 1968 and really hasn't had to work
since then.
Steven Rowe
godai
The Enigmatic C. wrote:
>
> manc...@netcom.com (David J. Warner) wrote:
>
> >I was chatting with the clerk at my local comic shop, and he is of the
> >firm belief that Marvel will never go under, because its characters are
> >just too damn popular. He believes the worst that will happen is that
> >they'll have to cut back to 4 Spidey-books, 7 X-books, and MAYBE Jim
> >Lee's half of Gyros Reborn and the occassional mini-series, but even so,
> >Marvel would survive on inertia alone. He backed this up by saying that
> >sales figures for last month's Uncanny X-Men were TRIPLE that of Spawn.
> >("441,000-something. Marvel isn't going anywhere.")
>
> Not to be the young upstart that I know I am, but this is pretty much
> completly bullshit. For starters, Good Businessmen and Comic Shop owners
> tend to be "mutually exclusive". So, almost any business advice Comic Shop
> owners give you will most likely be really really wrong.
>
> We actually know now, that after returns of over 100,000 copies, the actual
> copies-sold of Uncanny is about 320,000 copies or so. And that's Uncanny
> X-Men. The best selling comic at the company. To produce the best selling
> comic at Marvel, they incured 650 million dollars in debt. Compare this to
> the "trouble" that Image has been in since it's inception.
My understanding is that Marvel acquired their debt as Ron Perleman loaded
them up financing other ventures. Producing comics did not put them in debt;
before Perleman bought them they made a profit.
Jim Cannon
In article <32ACCC...@er.uqam.ca>, Daniel says...
DC does seem to be guilty of the same thing Marvel did with Spider-Man and
the X-books -- at least as far as Batman and Superman are concerned. And
quality on both Superman and Batman has dropped since DC expanded both lines
so much.
On the other hand, DC has yet to farm out any of its characters to Jim Lee
or Rob Liefeld.
Jim Cannon
x8...@music.stlawu.edu
http://www.stlawu.edu/x8cg:http/index.html
Kirk Chritton
So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to
claim
ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
Kirk Chritton
Vince
I mostly Agree, But I'll give Marvel 6 months to a year. Then they will go
under and re open as "Marvel Times" or "Hero's that Marvel" or some thing
like that.
I hope all the current heroes are able to stay in the same Universe. It is
sad to see Marvel is such shape. But I hope they (MARVEL) and the other
companies out there have learned THE FANS WON'T TAKE YOUR CRAP!!!!!! SO
GIVE US WHAT WE WANT! good stories, good art, good quality and leave the
attitude at home. Sorry "Stan" but it's been a long time since you were
the "MAN". I'm glad Kirby Didn't live to see this Mess (although I as well
as many greatly miss him).
I welcome Comments
Vince
vi...@netaccess.on.ca
Paul O'Brien
>: As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
>: characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
>Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets.
Hold on, that can't be right. As I understand it, the fundamental
principle of accountancy is that the accounts should be as accurate
as possible. Marvel's characters (or to be more accurate, the
trade marks which they own over them) are intellectual property
and can be sold. While you might not get much for U.S.1, the
market value of the rights to the X-Men must be quite substantial.
My accountancy training is limited, to be sure, but intellectual
property of this sort is quite clearly among the company's assets.
It's a bastard to value, but omitting it entirely would be an
even greater distortion of the truth.
Paul O'Brien
The Onslaught Index - http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/index/
It's officially summer.
srowe...@aol.com
In article <32AE48...@internetland.net>, Kirk Chritton
<kel...@internetland.net> writes:
>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to
>claim
>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
>
>
I assume that DC learned something in 1943, and had Shooter's parents sign
his contract.
Steven Rowe
Mike Chary
<srowe...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <32AE48...@internetland.net>, Kirk Chritton
><kel...@internetland.net> writes:
>
>>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to claim
>>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
Shooter had a column in Marvel comics sometime in the 1980's (when he
was editor in chief) and in one of these, he addressed this very issue.
Apparently a lawyer told him he could sue DC because he was a minor at
the time, but he didn't because he felt it would be unfair of him to take
advantage of his special circumstances when everyone else lived by
exactly the same contract. (This modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter
and trust my memory of a column written a decade ago.)
>I assume that DC learned something in 1943, and had Shooter's parents sign
>his contract.
HA! Jim Shooter talked about this at Chi Con this past summer. Apparently
Weisinger didn't know he was a minor (let alone 13) until well after he
had been writing scripts. He told he to come to New York for a business
meeting, and Shooter said, "Well, I have school." and Mort said "How old
are you?" (Modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter.)
Bart Gerardi
Daniel Angers wrote:
>
> kent travis lorenz wrote:
> > I couldn't agree with you more on these points, Saint. At least they've
> > cut back on the gimmick covers. Maybe they need to take a look at what
> > DC is doing.
>
> Like having a thousand of bat and supe-titles ?
>
Well, hopefully the Superbooks will go the way of the
Batbooks, and have them be separate. I can deal with
two books interwoven, like the Legion books, but four
(or more) is a little much. For Batman, having Batman
and 'tec get the gold triangles, and numbered, leaving
all the other titles as solo books, or add-ons that aren't
100% necessary, or theme books (like Dark Knight etc...)
would be fine. The same goes for Superman. Have Superman
and Action (or two of your chosing) stay numbered together,
and have the others be self-contained.
Now, as for the X-Books. For the most part, you *need* to
buy 12 books a month to get it all. I refuse to, but I
still get eight (more than I buy Batbooks) and feel ashamed
about it...
Bart
--
=======================================================
Bart Gerardi ger...@mail.dec.com
Finance IS 508 493 0845
Digital Equipment Trustno1
=======================================================
William George Ferguson
"Vince" <Vi...@netaccess.on.ca> wrote:
What they should learn is that a corporate raider can come in, buy out
your company, leech out the money, saddle the company with artificial
debts, and basically screw it over till it may never get out from under.
As others have pointed out, fan support or lack of support has virtually
nothing to do with Marvel's financial difficulties. UXM and XMen could
still be selling in the 800k range, and they would still be in same
situation. I would argue that it would still be exactly the same
situation, since I think that if Marvel had more money coming in, Perlman
would have piled on more indebtedness, but even if he hadn't, U.S. comics
have never sold at a high enough monthly rate to retire the debt he's
already incurred for Marvel.
--
annoying signature --
Kirk Chritton
Mike Chary wrote:
>
> <srowe...@aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <32AE48...@internetland.net>, Kirk Chritton
> ><kel...@internetland.net> writes:
> >
> >>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to claim
> >>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
>
> >his contract.
>
> HA! Jim Shooter talked about this at Chi Con this past summer. Apparently
> Weisinger didn't know he was a minor (let alone 13) until well after he
> had been writing scripts. He told he to come to New York for a business
> meeting, and Shooter said, "Well, I have school." and Mort said "How old
> are you?" (Modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter.)
This makes me wonder... How many people have started working in comics
before
their 18th birthday? Jim Shooter is the classic example. Bob Kane, who
launched
this topic. Trevor Von Eden? Wasn't he 17 or something when he was doing
Black
Lightning?
Jordan Bojar, who was publishing comics such as the Oz Squad from his
company
Brave New Words was a minor.
Can anybody add to that list?
Kirk Chritton
kel...@internetland.net
catherine yronwode
Mark Evanier wrote:
>
> Someone (I can't tell who) writes:
>
> >My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
> >character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
> >bargain.
>
> Then fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>
> >DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part
> >of the contract with Kane.
>
> >buying the character rights, you are living in a haze of sophistry. If
> >you are saying that the contract specified that the character belonged
> >to Kane and DC would pay him for it, I don't think that's the case,
> >but I don't know. I think Mark Evanier would know, however, so I'll
> >attract his attention.
>
> ME: Kane's special deal on BATMAN was not negotiated at the time of the
> character's creation. When the first story appeared, Kane was working
> under the same deal as everyone else, which means that he was paid a
> flat fee per page, and the company took the position that they owned
> all rights of every kind to whatever was depicted on those pages.
> Several years later, Siegel and Shuster, who had done SUPERMAN under
> essentially the same arrangement, filed a lawsuit that claimed that
> the terms were ambiguous and unfair. Shortly after this suit was
> filed, Kane renegotiated his arrangement with DC.
Not to argue with ME, but Kane himself once told me that his very first
contract with DC WAS different than S&S's Superman contract because his
father, who worked in the newspaper business, knew that comic strip
creators and newspaper columnists made lots of money, so because Bob was
not of legal age, he negotiated on Bob's behalf and got some kind of
ancillary rights clause written that promised Bob extra money or points
in case Batman was used in other formats (movies, strips, books, toys).
Kane told me that the reason he made out so well and S&S did not was
that his dad looked out for him and their folks did not -- and that the
early contract his dad had negotiated formed the basis for the
renegotiated contracts of later years. (And, please, ME, let us not
discuss the relaiablity of Kane in this forum; i only note that he told
me this story, not that i have seen any of the contracts in question).
catherine yronwode * mailto:c...@luckymojo.com * http://www.luckymojo.com
* The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/LuckyW.html *
* The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html *
* Karezza and Tantra: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html *
for discussions about folkloric magic, ask your ISP for news:alt.lucky.w
Sidne G. Ward
Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> writes:
>This makes me wonder... How many people have started working in comics
>before
>their 18th birthday? Jim Shooter is the classic example. Bob Kane, who
>launched
>this topic. Trevor Von Eden? Wasn't he 17 or something when he was doing
>Black Lightning?
>Jordan Bojar, who was publishing comics such as the Oz Squad from his
>company Brave New Words was a minor.
>Can anybody add to that list?
It seems that I've heard some sort of story about Colleen Doran working
for WaRP as a minor.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com
R.L. Carmine
Kirk Chritton wrote:
>
> Mike Chary wrote:
> >
> > <srowe...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >In article <32AE48...@internetland.net>, Kirk Chritton
> > ><kel...@internetland.net> writes:
> > >
> > >>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to claim
> > >>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
> >
> > >I assume that DC learned something in 1943, and had Shooter's parents sign
> > >his contract.
> >
> > HA! Jim Shooter talked about this at Chi Con this past summer. Apparently
> > Weisinger didn't know he was a minor (let alone 13) until well after he
> > had been writing scripts. He told he to come to New York for a business
> > meeting, and Shooter said, "Well, I have school." and Mort said "How old
> > are you?" (Modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter.)
>
> before
> their 18th birthday? Jim Shooter is the classic example. Bob Kane, who
> launched
> this topic. Trevor Von Eden? Wasn't he 17 or something when he was doing
> Black
> Lightning?
>
> Jordan Bojar, who was publishing comics such as the Oz Squad from his
> company
> Brave New Words was a minor.
>
> Can anybody add to that list?
Can't add to the names of pros, but there's a new mature reader comic
coming out (I can't recall the name off-hand) where the cover model for
the main character is only 15. I happen to know of it because she's a
friend of a friend, and she was up at the last Dragon con (or whatever
the damn thing's called...too tired to think straight right now).
> Kirk Chritton
> kel...@internetland.net
R.
Yeechang Lee
Mike Chary <fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Shooter had a column in Marvel comics sometime in the 1980's (when he
> was editor in chief) and in one of these, he addressed this very
> issue. Apparently a lawyer told him he could sue DC
"Million" was the money figure used by Shooter.
> because he was a minor at the time, but he didn't because he felt it would be
> unfair of him to take advantage of his special circumstances when
> everyone else lived by exactly the same contract. (This modulo how
> much you believe Jim Shooter and trust my memory of a column written
> a decade ago.)
Jives with my recollections of the column (and, for that matter, my
opinion of how much trust to put in Shooter).
--
http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/
patdo...@aol.com
Both Siegel and Shuster were just 18 when they started working for DC on
stuff like Slam Bradley.
Jerry Robinson was still in high school when he began as Bob Kane's
assistant.
George Perez had just graduated high school when he began assisting Rich
Buckler.
Nat Gertler
Sidne G. Ward wrote:
>
>
> >Can anybody add to that list?
Rich Buckler, Jr. (The Amazing Wazoo)
Trent Kanuga(? CreeD)
ja...@imagin.net
Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
>srowe...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Let me add this; from what I heard Kane signed the same statement as
>> Siegel and the others; but that this was found to be invalid, because he
>> was a minor. So, he could not sign his rights away (without his parent's
>> consent). His contract was redone in((let's see 68-25 =)1943?. He had
>> advice then.
>>
>> I have heard some other things about this contract.
>> There is a reason that Kane retired in 1968 and really hasn't had to work
>> since then.
>>
>> Steven Rowe
>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to
>claim
>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
Oh, yeh, that would make him a ton of money. Let's see, he can lay
claim to Matter-Eater Lad, Nemesis Kid, Bouncing Boy, Princess
Projectra, Karate Kid, Ferro Lad . . . . Stop me when I get to one
that the general public has even heard of.
Serves him right for being the "inspiration" behind Secret Wars.
Best,
John
ja...@imagin.net
>Kirk Chritton
W Lee or T Beatty
I missed the start of this thread, so this may already have been
mentioned, but I'm pretty sure Joe Kubert was still in his teens when he
started working around the DC offices... at least that's the story I
always heard...
Terry
srowe...@aol.com
In article <32AF74...@luckymojo.com>, catherine yronwode
<c...@luckymojo.com> writes:
>Not to argue with ME, but Kane himself once told me that his very first
>contract with DC WAS different than S&S's Superman contract because his
>father, who worked in the newspaper business, knew that comic strip
>creators and newspaper columnists made lots of money, so because Bob was
>not of legal age, he negotiated on Bob's behalf and got some kind of
>ancillary rights clause written that promised Bob extra money or points
>in case Batman was used in other formats (movies, strips, books, toys).
>Kane told me that the reason he made out so well and S&S did not was
>that his dad looked out for him and their folks did not -- and that the
>early contract his dad had negotiated formed the basis for the
>renegotiated contracts of later years. (And, please, ME, let us not
>discuss the relaiablity of Kane in this forum; i only note that he told
>me this story, not that i have seen any of the contracts in question).
>
I heard the same thing about what was in the contract (but not the date it
was signed); from someone who heard it from A DC source (not Kane).
It's possible that kane (and his dad) signed a 5 year contract,
renogatiated 1 year early before signing a 25 year contract.
Steven Rowe
Aardy R. DeVarque
Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
>This makes me wonder... How many people have started working in comics
>before
>their 18th birthday? Jim Shooter is the classic example. Bob Kane, who
>launched
>this topic. Trevor Von Eden? Wasn't he 17 or something when he was doing
>Black
>Lightning?
From what I've heard, Joe Madueira started pencilling the X-books when he
was 16 or so.
Aardy
F=S+T
Robert J. Brown
Jim Shooter was just 13 when he sold his first comic script.
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
: >Andy Adsetts (ads...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
: >: characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
: >Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets.
: Hold on, that can't be right.
It is.
: As I understand it, the fundamental
: principle of accountancy is that the accounts should be as accurate
: as possible.
Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
read a book.
: Marvel's characters (or to be more accurate, the
: trade marks which they own over them) are intellectual property
: and can be sold. While you might not get much for U.S.1, the
: market value of the rights to the X-Men must be quite substantial.
: My accountancy training is limited, to be sure, but intellectual
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: property of this sort is quite clearly among the company's assets.
: It's a bastard to value, but omitting it entirely would be an
: even greater distortion of the truth.
So don't make a fool of yourself arguing about something you know nothing
about. Historical cost concept is the first topic I learned in high
school and university. It has come up in all 16 accounting courses that
I've taken.
There are in fact two introductory level accounting principles that would
make most Marvel characters balance sheet values negligible:
1) Assets are listed at the lower of cost or market.
2) A contra asset account must be set up to systematically amortize assets
over time.
I don't come to this newsgroup to flame idiots, however, I stated both of
those points in the original post and explained the total allowable
lifetime of elegible cummulative capital. Surely you can do the math and
see that Captain America, Human Torch and Submariner's life times exceed
the maximum time permitted to depreciate their rights even if they were
allowed to be listed as assets.
--
Vincent
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
patdo...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <58fjld$m...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
: fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
: >My understanding was that DC hired Bob Kane to created a Shadow-type
: >character, and, in fact, Bob Kane cut himself one helluva deal on the
: >bargain.
: DC still had to buy the rights to the character, even if that was part of
: the contract with Kane.
My assumption was Bob Kane didn't receive more money for Detective 27
than for Detective 28. My example would have been much clearer if I said
Robin or Cable, I suppose.
Do current comic book creators receive a large stipend contractually to
create new characters? Lobo and Hellblazer appeared first in regular
issues of Omega Men and Swamp Thing, so I'd be silly for DC to pay Giffen
and Moore extra for them. What I want to know is if Giordano would call
Dan Jurgens about the Booster Gold project back in the '80's and tell him
okay, we'll buy it and pay you 5x more for issue #1. I'm aware that
writers and artists receive bonuses if sales exceed a certain amount, but
that is not the same as a lump sum for #1's
--
Vincent
Karl Hiller
Vince (Vi...@netaccess.on.ca) wrote:
: I hope all the current heroes are able to stay in the same Universe. It is
: sad to see Marvel is such shape. But I hope they (MARVEL) and the other
: companies out there have learned THE FANS WON'T TAKE YOUR CRAP!!!!!! SO
: GIVE US WHAT WE WANT! good stories, good art, good quality and leave the
: attitude at home.
Don't be so quick to take credit. Considering that their comics are still
among the top sellers, I doubt that Marvel has learned anything about the
fans or about quality. The fans and their opinions have very little to do
with the reasons for Marvel being on the verge of bankruptcy.
If Marvel should learn anything from this, it's to avoid having a
corporate raider for a majority stockholder.
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
visit The Courts of Chaos: | Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3 -- not
http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/ | even for very large values of 2.
~khiller/home.html |
Kirk Chritton
patdo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <58d2le$h...@ns2.ryerson.ca>, vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent
> Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>
> >Blue Beetle should probably be an asset on DC's balance sheet,* but not
> >Batman, because Blue Beetle was purchased while Batman was not.
>
> Excuse me? Batman certainly WAS purchased. It may have been purchased 57
> years ago and for a pittance of what it eventually became worth, but it
> was purchased.
Not only that, but Batman's ownership has changed a number of times
since then. Most recently when Time "bought" (okay, merged
with) Warner Communications.
Batman should appear as an asset at least as an "intangible" goodwill
item. "Batman the Concept" has value because the public is inclined
to like him and buy things associated with him.
Kirk Chritton
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92 wrote:
>
> Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> : vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
> : >Andy Adsetts (ads...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >: As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
> : >: characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
>
> : trade marks which they own over them) are intellectual property
> : and can be sold. While you might not get much for U.S.1, the
> : market value of the rights to the X-Men must be quite substantial.
> : My accountancy training is limited, to be sure, but intellectual
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : property of this sort is quite clearly among the company's assets.
> : It's a bastard to value, but omitting it entirely would be an
> : even greater distortion of the truth.
>
> So don't make a fool of yourself arguing about something you know nothing
> about. Historical cost concept is the first topic I learned in high
> school and university. It has come up in all 16 accounting courses that
> I've taken.
>
> There are in fact two introductory level accounting principles that would
> make most Marvel characters balance sheet values negligible:
>
> 1) Assets are listed at the lower of cost or market.
> 2) A contra asset account must be set up to systematically amortize assets
> over time.
One word. "Goodwill." This is a funky, vaporous accounting element
that the reputation and popularity of characters such as Batman,
Spider-Man, etc. absolutely contribute to. They may not appear
as specific accounting items, but all major properties certainly
contribute to goodwill.
Kirk Chritton
kel...@internetland.net
Epilchik
Mike CHary wrote:
>>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to
claim
>>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
>Shooter had a column in Marvel comics sometime in the 1980's (when he
>was editor in chief) and in one of these, he addressed this very issue.
>Apparently a lawyer told him he could sue DC because he was a minor at
>the time, but he didn't because he felt it would be unfair of him to take
>advantage of his special circumstances when everyone else lived by
>exactly the same contract. (This modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter
>and trust my memory of a column written a decade ago.)
IIRC, Shooter said, in that column, that he didn't sue because that's not
what Peter Parker would have done!
Evan
Hosun S. Lee
Epilchik (epil...@aol.com) wrote:
: Mike CHary wrote:
: >Shooter had a column in Marvel comics sometime in the 1980's (when he
: >was editor in chief) and in one of these, he addressed this very issue.
: >Apparently a lawyer told him he could sue DC because he was a minor at
: >the time, but he didn't because he felt it would be unfair of him to take
: >advantage of his special circumstances when everyone else lived by
: >exactly the same contract. (This modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter
: >and trust my memory of a column written a decade ago.)
: IIRC, Shooter said, in that column, that he didn't sue because that's not
: what Peter Parker would have done!
Well, yeah. Peter Parker would have just webbed up Julie Schwartz or
whoever was in charge at the time and hung him from the ceiling, taunted
him and then left out the window. I'd like to see Shooter try THAT
trick...
--
\\ \\ Hosun Lee
\\_\\ E-Mail: ho...@syr.edu
( X-X) WWW: http://web.syr.edu/~holee/
{_^_} [Urr...Right. Umm...Some Quip Goes Here, Right?]
Pierce Askegren
In case no one's mentioned him yet:
Gerry Conway made his first script sales (PHANTOM STRANGER)in his
teens. I'm pretty sure he was writing major Marvel titles before he
turned 21.
Do NOT Tickle the Elmo
Mike CHary wrote in a message I haven't seen in the original yet:
> : >Shooter had a column in Marvel comics sometime in the 1980's (when he
> : >was editor in chief) and in one of these, he addressed this very issue.
> : >Apparently a lawyer told him he could sue DC because he was a minor at
> : >the time, but he didn't because he felt it would be unfair of him to take
> : >advantage of his special circumstances when everyone else lived by
> : >exactly the same contract. (This modulo how much you believe Jim Shooter
> : >and trust my memory of a column written a decade ago.)
I have seen the same story, probably a couple of different times in a
couple of different places. I got the idea, however, that Shooter didn't
sue because he understood the contract and knew what he was signing,
not so much that everyone else lived by the same contract.
In my opinion, Shooter's position on the matter reflects very well on his
character.
--
"How to summarize Flex Mantallo in two sentences: FM is the story of a self-
pitying musician who attepts suicide but, after a protracted battle with
his subconscious, chooses hope over despair and lives happily ever after.
Everything else is a metaphor."--Thad A. Doria
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Roffus
It's obvious why Shooter didn't sue. It might have been a blow for
creator's rights.
Also how would it have looked for the head of Marvel to be suing DC
claiming they exploited him when he was a kid?
And if he won, what Marvel characters and stories might have been in
jeopardy because they were done by underage?
Paul O'Brien
vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets.
>: As I understand it, the fundamental
>: principle of accountancy is that the accounts should be as accurate
>: as possible.
>Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
>read a book.
Ah. He's patronising me. It's been a while since somebody did
that. [rubs hands]
1. I am doing an accountancy course this year. I am getting
rather good marks. Were my understanding of accountancy to be
as inadequate as you suggest, I suspect that that would not be
the case.
2. Your assertion that assets which were not purchased do not
require to be shown on the balance sheet seems to me to be
quite bizarre. I find it impossible to believe that if leave
a $1,000,000 fortune in my will to a company, then that company
is not obliged to list it on the balance sheet. That would
clearly create a misleading and therefore worthless balance
sheet.
3. In any event, Marvel's characters have been paid for. Marvel's
contracts with its freelancers must provide that the intellectual
property rights in the stories they write for Marvel, the artwork
they draw for Marvel and the characters they create for Marvel
are assigned to Marvel. Otherwise, the general law of intellectual
property would mean that those rights would belong to the creators
themselves. It goes without saying that these creators are paid.
It may reasonably be assumed that if the assignation clause was
omitted from the contract, the creators would be willing to work
for less money. It follows that a portion of the creators'
fees is attributable to the purchase of these intellectual
property rights. The difficulties that might arise in determining
the correct figure attributable do not detract from the fact that
the payment has taken place.
>So don't make a fool of yourself arguing about something you know nothing
>about. Historical cost concept is the first topic I learned in high
>school and university. It has come up in all 16 accounting courses that
>I've taken.
I do not dispute the existence of historical cost concept. I
dispute your application of it.
>There are in fact two introductory level accounting principles that would
>make most Marvel characters balance sheet values negligible:
>1) Assets are listed at the lower of cost or market.
>2) A contra asset account must be set up to systematically amortize assets
> over time.
Point 1) is basically accurate, but misleading for reasons I shall
come to. Point 2) is total crap, for reasons I shall also shortly
come to.
You are failing to account for two facts.
1) Not all assets have to be depreciated. Depreciation is
carried out on most assets because either they will be worn out
over their working life, or it can reasonably be anticipated that
the march of progress will make them obsolete. To leave them
sitting on the balance sheet at cost value would be misleading
and so their value is, as you say, depreciated over a period of
several years.
But not all fixed assets lose their value in that way.
The classic example of this is heritable property. It is a well
known fact that the value of buildings (office blocks, for example)
might well increase over time, and frequently does. It would
be patently absurd to depreciate the value of such an asset.
Therefore, such assets should not be depreciated. I might point
out at this point that every single example we have been shown on
this course quite deliberately does NOT depreciate heritage. If
this practice is incorrect, you might want to let a major
Edinburgh accountancy firm know, as one of their partners has
been doing it wrong all her life.
Intellectual property rights, such as trade marks in characters
and copyright in stories and artwork, do not depreciate. It
is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain that the trade
mark to Captain America is not used up over time.
2) Revaluation. A procedure carried out by accountants to allow
for the fact that the depreciation policy might be inaccurate.
Periodically, a business will get an independent valuation of
its assets and alter the balance sheet in order to reflect the
true value of those assets. The balance sheet may well show the
acquisition cost of the trade mark in the X-Men as a negligible
amount paid to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in return for their
assignations, but periodic revaluations will show that the
true value is far higher and will have altered the balance sheet
accordingly.
>I don't come to this newsgroup to flame idiots
Which is presumably why you haven't flamed one.
Paul O'Brien
The Onslaught Index - http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/index/
It's officially summer.
Bert Standish
ja...@imagin.net () wrote:
>Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
>>srowe...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me add this; from what I heard Kane signed the same statement as
>>> Siegel and the others; but that this was found to be invalid, because he
>>> was a minor. So, he could not sign his rights away (without his parent's
>>> consent). His contract was redone in((let's see 68-25 =)1943?. He had
>>> advice then.
>>>
>>> I have heard some other things about this contract.
>>> There is a reason that Kane retired in 1968 and really hasn't had to work
>>> since then.
>>>
>>> Steven Rowe
>>So, does this mean that Jim Shooter can now go back and renegotiate to
>>claim
>>ownership of a bunch of Legion of Super Heroes characters? :)
>Oh, yeh, that would make him a ton of money. Let's see, he can lay
>claim to Matter-Eater Lad, Nemesis Kid, Bouncing Boy, Princess
>Projectra, Karate Kid, Ferro Lad . . . . Stop me when I get to one
>that the general public has even heard of.
>Serves him right for being the "inspiration" behind Secret Wars.
I know this is anal and I get your point, but Shooter didn't create
Matter-Eater Lad nor Bouncing Boy.
Mark Schlesinger
In article <59184l$m...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
Paul O'Brien <pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>>Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>>: >Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets.
>
>>: As I understand it, the fundamental
>>: principle of accountancy is that the accounts should be as accurate
>>: as possible.
>
>>Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
>>read a book.
>
>Ah. He's patronising me. It's been a while since somebody did
>that. [rubs hands]
>
>1. I am doing an accountancy course this year. I am getting
>rather good marks. Were my understanding of accountancy to be
>as inadequate as you suggest, I suspect that that would not be
>the case.
>
>2. Your assertion that assets which were not purchased do not
>require to be shown on the balance sheet seems to me to be
>quite bizarre. I find it impossible to believe that if leave
>a $1,000,000 fortune in my will to a company, then that company
>is not obliged to list it on the balance sheet. That would
>clearly create a misleading and therefore worthless balance
>sheet.
>
on the income statemenet and included as part of cash assets on the
balance sheet. The first poster is mistaken.
>
>3. In any event, Marvel's characters have been paid for. Marvel's
>contracts with its freelancers must provide that the intellectual
>property rights in the stories they write for Marvel, the artwork
>they draw for Marvel and the characters they create for Marvel
>are assigned to Marvel. Otherwise, the general law of intellectual
>property would mean that those rights would belong to the creators
>themselves. It goes without saying that these creators are paid.
>It may reasonably be assumed that if the assignation clause was
>omitted from the contract, the creators would be willing to work
>for less money. It follows that a portion of the creators'
>fees is attributable to the purchase of these intellectual
>property rights. The difficulties that might arise in determining
>the correct figure attributable do not detract from the fact that
>the payment has taken place.
>
correct me if I'm wrong, stating that all characters in the story are
property of Marvel. They do not purchase characters, in this case.
Aha, here we might see why there is a disagreement. U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles(GAAP) are not necessarily the
same as UK GAAP. The value of intellectual property is not allowed in
US GAAP, as far as I know, since the "value" of the property is hard
if not impossible to determine.
>
>Intellectual property rights, such as trade marks in characters
>and copyright in stories and artwork, do not depreciate. It
>is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain that the trade
>mark to Captain America is not used up over time.
>
Yes, but just because an asset is depriciated doesn't mean it
can't be used. I can depreciate a computer over 5 years, but that doesn't
mean that I can't continue making money using it after the 5 years.
>
>2) Revaluation. A procedure carried out by accountants to allow
>for the fact that the depreciation policy might be inaccurate.
>Periodically, a business will get an independent valuation of
>its assets and alter the balance sheet in order to reflect the
>true value of those assets. The balance sheet may well show the
>acquisition cost of the trade mark in the X-Men as a negligible
>amount paid to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in return for their
>assignations, but periodic revaluations will show that the
>true value is far higher and will have altered the balance sheet
>accordingly.
>
Under US GAAP, there is no revaluation for assets. It goes by
strictly historical costs(with some exceptions for investments),
depreciated over time.
Hosun S. Lee
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92 (vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca) wrote:
: Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
: : >Andy Adsetts (ads...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : >: As a follow-up to that, does anyone know if Marvel considers its
: : >: characters 'assets' in the accounting sense?
: : >Unless they were purchased, they cannot be listed as assets.
: : Hold on, that can't be right.
: It is.
: : As I understand it, the fundamental
: : principle of accountancy is that the accounts should be as accurate
: : as possible.
: Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
: read a book.
[Snipped]
Oh lighten up and get off of your high horse, willya? Maybe he made some
mistakes and maybe not, but that's reason to be a condescending SOB. At
least he had the decency to ask questions and address them in a reasonable
tone, unlike some other folks on this newsgroup. Maybe everything he said
was half-assed, but I saw nothing in Paul's reply that would warrant such
a hostile reaction.
From your original post (not this follow-up), you seemed to be an
intelligent, humoour and likable fellow. Please don't change that
impression by being so cocky at someone who doesn't deserve it.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 15 Dec 1996 16:14:13 GMT, pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (Paul O'Brien)
wrote:
>vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>>Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>>Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
>>read a book.
>
>Ah. He's patronising me. It's been a while since somebody did
>that. [rubs hands]
You know, I haven't studied accounting at all, but I do run a small
business, and BOTH of you have said stuff that looks weird to me.
It occurs to me that this may be because I'm American watching a
Canadian and an Englishman argue about something that may well vary
somewhat from country to country. That bit about not depreciating
heritage property, for example -- that's not what the IRS says here in
the states. Believe me, as the owner of rental property built in
1840, I've read up on that.
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
The Misenchanted Page is at http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/
Last major update: 11/17/96
Hosun S. Lee
Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: On 15 Dec 1996 16:14:13 GMT, pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (Paul O'Brien)
: wrote:
: >vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
: >>Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: >
: >>Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
: >>read a book.
: >
: >Ah. He's patronising me. It's been a while since somebody did
: >that. [rubs hands]
: You know, I haven't studied accounting at all, but I do run a small
: business, and BOTH of you have said stuff that looks weird to me.
: It occurs to me that this may be because I'm American watching a
: Canadian and an Englishman argue about something that may well vary
: somewhat from country to country. That bit about not depreciating
: heritage property, for example -- that's not what the IRS says here in
: the states. Believe me, as the owner of rental property built in
: 1840, I've read up on that.
Right. There's only one way to solve all of this. Let's all move to Cape
Verde. The world will thanks us.
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
> One word. "Goodwill." This is a funky, vaporous accounting element
> that the reputation and popularity of characters such as Batman,
> Spider-Man, etc. absolutely contribute to. They may not appear
> as specific accounting items, but all major properties certainly
> contribute to goodwill.
You might have missed some posts. Some guy speculated that X-Men must
appear as a huge specific accounting item, to which I followed-up "No."
Strictly speaking, goodwill is the excess of purchase price over fair market
value when one company buys another one. When one company buys another,
the parent company revalues the subsidiary's balance sheet items for the
consolidated financial statements, but the subsidiary's books are not
affected at all, which is the issue of what's the value of X-Men on
Marvel's books.
If you're not in accounting, then you don't need to know this. If you
are and don't understand, I'd be happy to take it to email, since you've
kinda got it, but not quite.
--
Vincent
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
> Not only that, but Batman's ownership has changed a number of times
> since then. Most recently when Time "bought" (okay, merged
> with) Warner Communications.
>
> Batman should appear as an asset at least as an "intangible" goodwill
> item. "Batman the Concept" has value because the public is inclined
> to like him and buy things associated with him.
Almost, but not quite.
Batman was not purchased by DC in the last 40 years, thus there can be no
goodwill involved in that. The value of Batman on DC's balance sheet has
to be 0.
Since the fair market value of Batman exceeds 0, when Warner bought DC,
Warner would need to set up an account on the consolidation worksheet for
copyrights, which would list Batman's estimated fair market value.
Warner would then amortize it in subsequent years.
That doesn't affect DC's books, but it answers your point about DC's
acquistion and goodwill.
--
Vincent
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Paul O'Brien wrote (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> Ah. He's patronising me. It's been a while since somebody did
> that. [rubs hands]
>
> 1. I am doing an accountancy course this year. I am getting
> rather good marks. Were my understanding of accountancy to be
> as inadequate as you suggest, I suspect that that would not be
> the case.
Study more, post less.
> 2. Your assertion that assets which were not purchased do not
> require to be shown on the balance sheet seems to me to be
> quite bizarre. I find it impossible to believe that if leave
> a $1,000,000 fortune in my will to a company, then that company
> is not obliged to list it on the balance sheet. That would
> clearly create a misleading and therefore worthless balance
> sheet.
Read a book. Do you have anything to base your absurd beliefs on other
that "I find it impossible to believe"?
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook:
"A capital asset should be recorded at cost."
Section 3060 paragraph 18
CICA Handbook is law in Canada, is compatible with U.S. GAAP, and
chartered accountants from Canada can operate in the U.S. as public
accountants without any retraining.
> 3. In any event, Marvel's characters have been paid for. Marvel's
> contracts with its freelancers must provide that the intellectual
> property rights in the stories they write for Marvel, the artwork
> they draw for Marvel and the characters they create for Marvel
> are assigned to Marvel. Otherwise, the general law of intellectual
> property would mean that those rights would belong to the creators
> themselves. It goes without saying that these creators are paid.
> It may reasonably be assumed that if the assignation clause was
> omitted from the contract, the creators would be willing to work
> for less money. It follows that a portion of the creators'
> fees is attributable to the purchase of these intellectual
> property rights. The difficulties that might arise in determining
> the correct figure attributable do not detract from the fact that
> the payment has taken place.
Study more, post less. They're wages - which are expensed, not capitalized.
Have you ever seen the financial statements for a publication company or
entertainment company?
> >There are in fact two introductory level accounting principles that would
> >make most Marvel characters balance sheet values negligible:
>
> >1) Assets are listed at the lower of cost or market.
> >2) A contra asset account must be set up to systematically amortize assets
> > over time.
>
> Point 1) is basically accurate, but misleading for reasons I shall
> come to. Point 2) is total crap, for reasons I shall also shortly
> come to.
>
> You are failing to account for two facts.
>
> 1) Not all assets have to be depreciated. Depreciation is
> carried out on most assets because either they will be worn out
> over their working life, or it can reasonably be anticipated that
> the march of progress will make them obsolete. To leave them
> sitting on the balance sheet at cost value would be misleading
> and so their value is, as you say, depreciated over a period of
> several years.
CICA Handbook:
Amortization should be recognized in a rational and systematic manner
appropriate to the nature of a capital asset with a limited life and its
use by the enterprise. The amount of amortization that shoud be charge
to income is the greater of
(a) the cost less salvage value over the life of the asset; and
(b) the cost less residual value over the useful life of the asset
Section 3060 paragraph 31
When the useful life of a capital asset other than land is expecte to
exceed 40 years, but cannot be stimated and clearly demonstrated, the
amortization period should be limited to 40 years.
Section 3060 paragraph 32
> But not all fixed assets lose their value in that way.
> The classic example of this is heritable property. It is a well
> known fact that the value of buildings (office blocks, for example)
> might well increase over time, and frequently does. It would
> be patently absurd to depreciate the value of such an asset.
> Therefore, such assets should not be depreciated. I might point
> out at this point that every single example we have been shown on
> this course quite deliberately does NOT depreciate heritage. If
> this practice is incorrect, you might want to let a major
> Edinburgh accountancy firm know, as one of their partners has
> been doing it wrong all her life.
You're wrong. See above.
> Intellectual property rights, such as trade marks in characters
> and copyright in stories and artwork, do not depreciate. It
> is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain that the trade
> mark to Captain America is not used up over time.
You're wrong. See above. That would also violate another GAAP,
matching. Expenses must be recognized in the period when revenues were
generated. A trademark only has value if it can generate future
revenues. If it generates future revenues, then it must be
systematically expensed under the matching principle.
> 2) Revaluation. A procedure carried out by accountants to allow
> for the fact that the depreciation policy might be inaccurate.
> Periodically, a business will get an independent valuation of
> its assets and alter the balance sheet in order to reflect the
> true value of those assets. The balance sheet may well show the
> acquisition cost of the trade mark in the X-Men as a negligible
> amount paid to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in return for their
> assignations, but periodic revaluations will show that the
> true value is far higher and will have altered the balance sheet
> accordingly.
You're wrong. Not only does that violate GAAP, but I have copies of
Disney and Warner's annual reports. There is no financial statement item
related to the illegal act of increasing Donald Duck's valuation.
> >I don't come to this newsgroup to flame idiots
>
> Which is presumably why you haven't flamed one.
Flaming usually involves a lot of swearing and talk about your mother, so
no I am not flaming an idiot. I agree that you're an idiot though.
--
Vincent
Rich Johnston
In article <594aif$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com says...
> Marvel purchases stories from the freelancers with the contract,
>correct me if I'm wrong, stating that all characters in the story are
>property of Marvel. They do not purchase characters, in this case.
When I buy a pack of cigarettes, I buy the cigarettes inside the pack,
as well as just the pack itself. Otherwise I've been stealing a lot
from Rothmans.
Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>
Vincent Louie - AERE/F92
Hosun Lee <ho...@syr.edu> wrote:
> Oh lighten up and get off of your high horse, willya?
Okay.
> Maybe he made some
> mistakes and maybe not, but that's reason to be a condescending SOB. At
> least he had the decency to ask questions and address them in a reasonable
> tone, unlike some other folks on this newsgroup. Maybe everything he said
> was half-assed, but I saw nothing in Paul's reply that would warrant such
> a hostile reaction.
I don't remember him asking questions, just stating why he though I was
wrong without any facts to back him up, just opinion. Imagine if Einstein
posted the Theory of Relativity, and someone started reciting
multiplication tables:
2 x 2 is 4
2 x 3 is 5
2 x 4 is 6
I think Einsten would be rather annoyed. And 2 x 4 is 6 is wrong just as
his views on accounting are.
> >From your original post (not this follow-up), you seemed to be an
> intelligent, humoour and likable fellow.
Thanks!
> Please don't change that
> impression by being so cocky at someone who doesn't deserve it.
Alright, but please understand that I think my original post was quite
clearly answered someone else's question of shouldn't X-Men be worth a lot
on Marvel's balance sheet and then I explained why. His follow-up of
"this can't be right" etc. are <fillintheblank>.
Perhaps I took too much offense to his original follow-up. In my opinion
though, I thought it was like a geographer cited that the circumference of
the Earth is smaller from pole to pole than around the equator and someone
said "But wait, the world is flat!"
In any case though, Marvel's financial statements are pubically available.
--
Vincent
Mark Schlesinger
In article <595v19$8...@lana.zippo.com>,
Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com> wrote:
>In article <594aif$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com says...
>
>>correct me if I'm wrong, stating that all characters in the story are
>>property of Marvel. They do not purchase characters, in this case.
>
>as well as just the pack itself. Otherwise I've been stealing a lot
>from Rothmans.
>
>
with the contract stating that all characters in the story are property of
Marvel. The don't go out to buy a character, with some possible
exceptions, but a story and the characters are dragged along.
Tom Vincent
In article <32b03a07...@news.anet-chi.com>, aa...@anet-chi.com
(Aardy R. DeVarque) wrote:
> Kirk Chritton <kel...@internetland.net> wrote:
> >This makes me wonder... How many people have started working in comics
> >before
> >their 18th birthday?
I hired Mike Dubisch as my assistant when he was 16 on the strength of
some drawings he had shown Steve Bissette and me at a convention. One of
the jobs was the original comic book version of Mars Attacks, published by
Pocket Comics. (Among the other creators involved were Greg Capullo of
Spawn fame, Kevin Conrad of Spawn fame, John Hebert of X-Men and Punisher
fame, and Bruce Spaulding Fuller, who has since gone on to become a
premier makeup artist in Hollyweird- his first job there being on Dick
Tracy)
Anyway, Mike has had two titles published by Kitchen Sink- Flesh Crawlers
and... I can't remember the name of the other. He also just finished up
design work for a CD rom of "Joe's Apartment", is doing covers for Dark
Horse's ALIEN vs PREDATOR reprints, some Johnny Quest covers also (I
think), and is a regular contributer to SCIENCE FICTION AGE and REALMS OF
FANTASY.
---TV
--
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - President Thomas Jefferson
"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the
Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it
anymore." Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American
Center for Law and Justice
"Well, somebody's lying." Tom Vincent, November 1996
Paul O'Brien
Okay. I went home, I checked my notes.
He's right. Well, to be slightly more accurate, I'm wrong on
some points and the remainder can probably be attributed to
different approaches between the Scottish and Canadian and
jurisdictions.
F***.
Still, I may have been wrong, but at least I had a modicum of
good manners about it. If this article gets a reply that
doesn't have a tone of overwhelming smugness, perhaps we'll
both have learned something, hmm?
Paul O'Brien
The Onslaught Index - http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/index/
Irony is dead. How appropriate.
srowe...@aol.com
In article
<Pine.A32.3.91.961217...@hopper.acs.ryerson.ca>, Vincent
Louie - AERE/F92 <vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca> writes:
>Batman was not purchased by DC in the last 40 years, thus there can be no
>goodwill involved in that.
Don't be so sure of that.
AEFPCEUL
Hosun S. Lee wrote:
> From your original post (not this follow-up), you seemed to be an
> impression by being so cocky at someone who doesn't deserve it.
>
> \\ \\ Hosun Lee
> \\_\
That´s what accountacy does to people.
kds
In article <596cvt$n...@newstand.syr.edu>, ho...@newstand.syr.edu says...
>
>Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
>: On 15 Dec 1996 16:14:13 GMT, pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (Paul O'Brien)
>: wrote:
>
>: >vlo...@acs.ryerson.ca (Vincent Louie - AERE/F92) writes:
>: >>Paul O'Brien (pr...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >
>: >>Then you don't understand fundamental accounting at all. I suggest you
>: >>read a book.
>: >
>: >that. [rubs hands]
>
>: You know, I haven't studied accounting at all, but I do run a small
>: business, and BOTH of you have said stuff that looks weird to me.
>
>: It occurs to me that this may be because I'm American watching a
>: Canadian and an Englishman argue about something that may well vary
>: somewhat from country to country. That bit about not depreciating
>: heritage property, for example -- that's not what the IRS says here in
>: the states. Believe me, as the owner of rental property built in
>: 1840, I've read up on that.
>
>Right. There's only one way to solve all of this. Let's all move to Cape
>Verde. The world will thanks us.
>
>--
>\\ \\ Hosun Lee
> \\_\\ E-Mail: ho...@syr.edu
> ( X-X) WWW: http://web.syr.edu/~holee/
> {_^_} [Urr...Right. Umm...Some Quip Goes Here, Right?]
Hosun
You moron!!!!!!
Where in the name of Aunt Petunia is Cape Verde?
BTW, Nice sig file picture, but for heaven's sake - get a quote!!!
KDS
Hosun S. Lee
kds (k...@gnc.net) wrote:
: In article <596cvt$n...@newstand.syr.edu>, ho...@newstand.syr.edu says...
: >
: >Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: >
: >: You know, I haven't studied accounting at all, but I do run a small
: >: business, and BOTH of you have said stuff that looks weird to me.
: >
: >: It occurs to me that this may be because I'm American watching a
: >: Canadian and an Englishman argue about something that may well vary
: >: somewhat from country to country. That bit about not depreciating
: >: heritage property, for example -- that's not what the IRS says here in
: >: the states. Believe me, as the owner of rental property built in
: >: 1840, I've read up on that.
: >
: >Right. There's only one way to solve all of this. Let's all move to Cape
: >Verde. The world will thanks us.
: Hosun
: You moron!!!!!!
: Where in the name of Aunt Petunia is Cape Verde?
: BTW, Nice sig file picture, but for heaven's sake - get a quote!!!
: KDS
For future reference.
By the way, whoever you are, please do *NOT*...*NOT* send an e-mail AND
follow up to a post. It's bad karma.
I think this officially beats up Elayne's position as most off-topic
poster.... B-)