Gaiman v. McFarlane Decision Handed Down 104
aronc writes "In a case of speedy justice a jury today ruled that Neil Gaiman was in the right on all 9 counts in the case he brought against Todd McFarlane. More details at ComiCon Pulse and ICv2. This case revolved around ownership stakes for Medieval Spawn, Angela, Cagliostro, and further contracts involving the rights to Miracle Man."
Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:4, Insightful)
Perfect timing, of course - just after I spent £28.50 on the second TPB of the series on eBay.
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:5, Insightful)
This is possible, but not certain. Late yesterday and today will be the penalty phase wherein Gaiman and the courts will decide what xactly happens now that they say he was right. In all probability he will simply enforce the 1997 agreement the two of them had, which gives Todd control over the Spawn characters and Neil MiracleMan. Given that McF defaulted on that contract, however, Gaiman could chose to persue a different set of terms. We shall see later today or tomorrow.
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:2)
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there are still some other legal hassels involved. It seems there is some question as to whether the person who sold the MM rights to Eclipse back in the day actually had them to sell. If he didn't that would of course void all the Elipse owndership and all the subsequent transfers from there on.
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:4, Informative)
The most likely guess is that when Dez Skinn revived Marvelman/Miracleman in 1981, the rights had lapsed into the public domain. However, after having published the character for a while, he had then created interest in it. And, name and costume aside, the Alan Moore Marvelman/Miracleman was quite different to the Mick Anglo Marvelman.
Kimota! gives the impression that Gaiman would like the series to continue. Moore wouldn't mind seeing it in print again either. Gaiman could FINISH THE DAMN STORY ...
(I just bought Kimota! last Saturday, and was despairing of ever getting hold of the originals again ...)
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:3, Interesting)
Image has no say as to the editorial content of any of the Founding Fathers' (McFarlane, Larsen, Valentino, Silvestri at this point) titles. So if the jury is ruling against Image Comics because they did or didn't put Neil Gaiman's bio on the back cover of an ANGELA trade, then that count should be overturned. It's factually incorrect. That's Todd McFarlane Productions' problem. Not Image's.
Other than those two counts, I'm happy with the ruling. I think now Todd should just exchange MarvelMan/MiracleMan to Neil for full rights to Angela (dead as of SPAWN #100), Medievil Spawn, and Cogliostro, and everyone call the deal done.
THEN those lawsuits over who owns what can begin. =)
-Augie
Re:Miracleman returns - outstanding news (Score:2, Informative)
I think you'll find it's "MarvelMan" (Score:2)
TWW
McFarlane's woes (Score:5, Funny)
McFarlane is a Diva and deserves to be spanked! (Score:5, Informative)
The Convention guys agreed, bought them the air tickets, booked the hotel... everything. So McFarlane comes to the opening of the Convention, signs 2 hours of autographs, and then leaves the friggin place!
Turns out that once he had the tickets, he called the airline and the hotel and changed the dates on his reservation! The guy just ignored his contract (Which required him to stay 3 days at the convention and do a conference) and took the vacation and the money! The Convention organizers tried to sue, but of course, this involves international law and treaties and it would have been far too expensive... So they decided to just drop matters...
Of course, the year after that, they invited Will Eisner, and he was absolutely great... He spent more than 3 hours talking about his work and answering questions... he even showcased work by local aspiring artists and gave them some good natured advice, and pointed out to the audience what he liked and disliked about the pieces.
Re:McFarlane is a Diva and deserves to be spanked! (Score:2)
Re: My sig (Score:2)
MPG -> Makini, Papua New Guinea,
OGG -> Maui HI,
SQL -> San Carlos CA,
Basically the ammount of airports in the world is such that you can find -almost- any three letter code in the IATA directory
More depth? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More depth? (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, this isn't a copyright issue. Copyrights are at stake, but the judicial decisions are all contract law. The two big points were basically if McF & Gaiman had 'contracts' based on agreements they made when Neil originaly wrote the Spawn issue and in 1997 when they supposedly settled this issue (which Todd later reneged on).
Re:More depth? (Score:1)
9 counts??? I'd say that the question is whether or not Tod McF is a sociopathic A*hole who has no respect for the agreements he makes with people once he has what he wants.
If the story of what he did to the Mexican convention [slashdot.org] is even close to accurate, I'd say that there's a pattern here that points to the answer being a resounding "yes".
If he was as blatent about his disregard for agreements as he appears to have been in Mexico, then I'd say there's a good possibility that the jury would make a sizable punitive award. (as in: slap him on the wrist -- with a two-by-four)
That's all fine but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's all fine but... (Score:1)
Re:That's all fine but... (Score:1)
It's about time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though it's nice to see a fellow Canadian's success, his "I've got the world by the balls" attitude has finally been proved to be incorrect.
I've heard plenty about MarvelMan/MiracleMan, and I look forward to seeing and reading more of him.
Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) (Score:3, Redundant)
3.There was a contract in 1992 (when McFarlane promised that he would treat Gaiman "better than the big guys").
4.McFarlane breached the 1992 contract.
5.There was a contract in 1997 (this was the rights swap of Gaiman's interests in Medieval Spawn and Cagliostro for McFarlane's interest in Miracleman, plus setting royalty percentages for all uses of Angela and allowing "one-off" projects using the characters).
If he treats the "big guys" worse than he treated Gaiman... we might see a couple of another cases enter court as well.
Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) (Score:4, Insightful)
he is way beyound "independent". Maybe he could have saved his face by ending his stories a few times per year, but that's not the way everyone else does it.
Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) (Score:2)
He wasn't at the time he hired Gaiman to write SPAWN #9 for him...
Jay (=
Re:Fair Play Club (or Farlane Play Club) (Score:1)
Some background here? (Score:3, Insightful)
So could someone give me a run up on who the players are? (i.e. "Gaiman" "McFarlane" "Image" "Medieval Spawn" "Cagliostro" "Miracle Man")
Re:Some background here? (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAICD (can decypher) it's about two comic artists fussing about comic characters.... But hey, since I haven't read a decent comic for more than 5 or 6 years, I'm totally out of it. I used to be a rabid Spiderman fan, but I've lost touch :(
You should check out Amazing Spiderman... (Score:2)
They've got J. Michael Straczynski (of Babylon 5 fame) writing the book now, and it's pretty good.
I had thought I would never read a Marvel comic again, but I'm happy to read ASM now.
Jon Acheson
Re:Some background here? (Score:5, Informative)
The rights to MIRACLEMAN are a tangled mess.
The story begins with CAPTAIN MARVEL. In 1953, DC managed to finally stop
Fawcett from publishing CAPTAIN MARVEL. After a drawn-out legal battle, the
courts held CAPTAIN MARVEL to violate DC's SUPERMAN copyright. At this
point, Fawcett decided that continuing the appeals process was not
worthwhile and settled with DC (see section 5-25).
British publisher L. Miller & Sons had been publishing black and white
reprints of CAPTAIN MARVEL. With Fawcett out of the CAPTAIN MARVEL
business, L. Miller & Sons was left without anything to reprint. So they
decided to make their own hero, and approached artist Mick Anglo to create
one. What Anglo came up with was MARVELMAN. Anglo's CAPTAIN MARVEL "clone"
was quite successful; MARVELMAN ran until 1963.
When MARVELMAN was revived and revamped in the 1982 (by Alan Moore and Gary
Leach), as a feature in Dez Skinn's WARRIOR, the rights to the character
apparently came to be held jointly by Skinn, Moore, and Leach (each holding
a third). When Alan Davis took over from Gary Leach, Leach's share of the
rights was apparently transferred to Davis.
However, there is a complication. Depending upon who is telling the story,
Dez Skinn either:
(a) believed that MARVELMAN was in public domain when WARRIOR revived the
character,
(b) bought the rights to MARVELMAN from Mick Anglo (and shared them with
Moore and Leach), or
(c) promised to buy the rights from Anglo, but never paid him for them.
If (a) or (b) is correct-and MARVELMAN was in the public domain when it was
revived for WARRIOR-then the rights were shared equally by Skinn, Moore,
and Davis. However, if (c) is correct, then Anglo may have a claim on
some-if not all-of the MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN rights. catherine yronwode
(former editor-in-chief of Eclipse) has said that Dez Skinn represented (b)
being true when Eclipse was negotiating the purchase of Skinn's portion of
the rights.
Assuming that MARVELMAN/MIRCALEMAN rights really were held jointly by
Moore, Davis, and Skinn (which most of the principles involved apparently
believed), then here's what happened:
Moore's MARVELMAN story was never completed in WARRIOR. In 1985, Eclipse
and Alan Moore, revived the WARRIOR revival as MIRACLEMAN. The change from
MARVELMAN to MIRACLEMAN was made in deference to Marvel Comics, because
both publishers involved felt that a superhero named "MARVELMAN" might
infringe on Marvel's US trademark.
Marvel had first objected to the use of "MARVELMAN" as a comic book title
back when Skinn had published "MARVELMAN SPECIAL" in 1983.
Eclipse Comics bought Dez Skinn's 1/3 share of the MARVELMAN rights. Then,
some time later, Eclipse bought Alan Davis' 1/3 share (at the time, Davis
and Moore were embroiled in a dispute over whether to allow Marvel to
reprint Moore and Davis' run on CAPTAIN BRITAN, and Davis wanted as little
to do with Moore as possible). This left Eclipse with 2/3 of the rights,
and Moore with 1/3.
When Moore finished his MIRACLEMAN story (at issue 16), and chose Neil
Gaiman to replace him, he transferred his part ownership of the characters
to Gaiman (or to Gaiman and his collaborator, Mark Buckingham). When
Eclipse went bankrupt in 1994, the series ended in mid-story with issue 24.
However, issue 25 of MIRACLEMAN existed in nearly complete form. As Eclipse
was going under, yronwode mailed the finished art for MIRACLEMAN #25 to
Gaiman. Presumably, he still has it.
According to catherine yronwode, Gaiman had approved a spin-off series
called MIRACLEMAN TRIUMPHANT that took place in the time period between the
end of Gaiman's first storyline and the beginning of his second. MIRACLEMAN
TRIUMPHANT was written by Fred Burke and illustrated by Mike Deodato Jr.
(who shared the rights to this project with Eclipse and Gaiman). Two issues
were scripted, and one issue was finished, but never released. The artwork
is still in possession of yronwode, and she has stated that she intends to
mail it to Fred Burke whenever someone finally untangles the MIRACLEMAN
copyright problems, and agrees to publish MIRACLEMAN TRIUMPHANT.
At the time of the Eclipse bankruptcy, Eclipse held with two-thirds of the
rights to MIRACLEMAN, and Gaiman held one-third of the rights (either on
his own, or jointly with Buckingham). Then in 1996, Todd McFarlane
Productions purchased all of Eclipse's assets at a bankruptcy auction for
$40,000. These assets included whatever share of MIRACLEMAN that Eclipse
owned, along with other Eclipse-owned characters like as Airboy, the Heap,
Valkyrie, Sky Wolf, etc.
Rumor has it that McFarlane thought he was getting all rights to MIRACLEMAN
(other than those rights held by Gaiman--or Gaiman and Buckingham).
However, since then, Dez Skinn has reportedly claimed that some or all of
the MIRACLEMAN rights have reverted to him. To further complicate matters,
Anglo has claimed that he owns ALL rights to MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN. Finally,
McFarlane and Gaiman are involved in a dispute over Gaiman's rights to
Angela (which he co-created in SPAWN #9 on a handshake deal), and are not
currently on very friendly terms.
Although there have been numerous second-hand reports that McFarlane has
offered to trade whatever rights he holds to MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN to Gaiman
in return for Gaiman dropping any claims on Angela, the rights to the two
characters are in no way linked.
Interestingly enough, in October 1997, Todd McFarlane Productions filed for
a US registered trademark on "MIRACLEMAN" under classes 016 (printed
matter, namely, comic books and posters), 025 (clothing, namely, shirts,
athletic shirts, T-shirts, caps and jackets), and 028 (toys, namely, action
figures and accessories therefore). The proposed trademarks were published
for opposition on 06/02/1998, and according to the US PTO's online database
(http://trademarks.uspto.gov/access/sea
So who owns MIRACLEMAN? Nobody knows...
Re:Some background here? (Score:1)
Spawn is one of the top 3 selling comics in the world, and has been for years. They also made a summer action movie based on the character several years ago. McFarland was the illustrator of Spiderman a decade or so ago, when the character became really popular again.
Gaiman's work has been featured on slashdot many times (he is a best-selling fantasy novelist as well as a comic writer). He co-wrote a book with Terry Pratchett, Good Omens.
This isn't that obsure.
Re:Some background here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some background here? (Score:5, Informative)
The background:
-Todd McFarlane is a comic writer and artist. He and six others left Marvel Comics in 1992 and cofounded a company called Image Comics, based on creative rights and ownership and whatnot. (He's the creator of "Spawn," if you're familiar with the comic, movie, or cartoon.)
-Neil Gaiman is a writer. He's worked mostly for DC Comics, and created the wildly popular "Sandman" series. He's since left comics, mostly, and these days writes novels that win lots of awards.
-Miracleman is an old character published by some of the big companies. In the 80s two writers took a swing at him-- Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman-- and created some very, very good work out of it, stories whose reputations have only grown in time. It was work for hire, though, and so reprint rights remained with DC Comics. Reprint rights since then have been shuffled about here and there for whatever reasons, and eventually landed in Todd McFarlane's lap.
The History:
-In 1992 Gaiman wrote an issue of "Spawn" for McFarlane. In doing this, he created several characters for the series that grew very popular. The characters continued to appear in "Spawn" and were even given their own series. McFarlane promised Gaiman a cut of the profits, but never wrote the check.
-In 1995 McFarlane and Gaiman reached an agreement (the "Oakland agreement"). Gaiman would give up most of his interests in the "Spawn" characters he created (except for a small percentage of profit), and in exchange, McFarlane would hand over his rights to Miracleman (which Gaiman wanted so that he could allow somebody to reprint the old stories). Again, McFarlane never bothered to cut a check, and apparently denies the agreement was made altogether.
-And so Gaiman filed suit. And he won yesterday. Apparently the punishment will be handed down next. From the sound of things, he's going to be basically asking that the terms of the Oakland agreement are held up. What Gaiman has wanted from the beginning has been reprint rights to some of his old stories.
So there you have it, basically. You can follow the links in the original story for updates. If you're interested, Gaiman keeps a very pleasant online journal [neilgaiman.com].
If I may throw in my two cents-- McFarlane here has been greedy and hypocritical. He co-founded Image Comics as a creator's haven, and then proceeded to do to exactly what he'd always complained about during his time at Marvel. At least Marvel is up-front about their contracts.
It's not like McFarlane doesn't have the money. He dropped something like two million bucks for Mark McGwire's historic home run ball way back when. He runs a little publishing mini-empire, fueled by "Spawn's" success.
To the poster that called Gaiman the "little guy," that's a little distorted. Gaiman is about as big a name is comics as they come-- but he's also a reasonable fellow, and wished it wouldn't have come to this.
So that's that. Most of the comics industry these days thinks of McFarlane as a bloated, success-spoiled asshole, because of things like this. Yesterday, he got what's coming to him.
Re:Some background here? (Score:2)
That is exactly the background I was looking for. (not that the long miracleman background story was bad, but I wasn't able to figure out the McFarlane/Gaiman relationship from it) Now why isn't this post modded +5 yet?
To the poster that called Gaiman the "little guy," that's a little distorted. Gaiman is about as big a name is comics as they come-- but he's also a reasonable fellow, and wished it wouldn't have come to this.
I think that was me. It wasn't so much that I was characterizing or criticizing Gaiman, I just had no idea who any of the players were. In extrapolating from the information I did have it resembled a David vs. Goliath copyright battle, so I thought Gaiman was the David and McFarlane was the Goliath.
Re:Some background here? (Score:2)
Not with DC. It's much more complicated than that. Check the book Kimota! - covers the entire saga.
Re:care less (Score:5, Informative)
If you would actually read the links you would understand why this happened. One reasonable man (Gaiman) and one huge ego (McFarlane) did work this out in a meeting in 1997. Then last year McFarlane decided he didn't like that deal anymore and started acting as if it never happened. Thus, he got taken to court.
Re:care less (Score:1)
perspective. This issue is no different from
many that occur day-to-day for everyone. People
are often dishonest and egotistical. The only
worthwhile news here is that the decision was
made. Who was right/wrong? Why does anyone
care?
Re:care less (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:care less (Score:1)
Way to go, Mr. Gaiman. Keep up the good work.
Re:care less (Score:4, Funny)
Ok... so you could care less -- which means you do care... so how much do you care? That's a very vague statement.
Unless, of course, you meant you couldn't care less, meaning you don't care at all...
Re:care less (Score:2)
Re:care less (why am I saying this?) (Score:1)
Either that, or "I could care less, (but it would take some work)".
Re:care less (why am I saying this?) (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that the original version was common until the late 1980s, when, like all irritating things with perfectly reasonable alternatives, the "lazy" version began to take over.
Or perhaps I was just oblivious until then.
Argh (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Argh (Score:1)
Sorry, son, had to be said. Your mother sends
her regards.
A nightmare.....?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok now that thats out of my system.....
McFarlane is a businessman first and has been for a long time, once he was a great illustrator (probably still is...when he does draw....) and his high horse attitude just makes stories like this and situations like this very amusing.
I was actually shocked when I read this headline, as I have not followed comics seriously in many years....but those two are big boys in the industry....and I'm glad for Gaiman
I can almost see McFarlane standing there before trial in his best brooding glare (ala the intro to the Spawn animated series) saying "....you cannot hope to win against Lord McFarlane, you cannot hope...ahh screw it....would you care for a limited edition gold-plated Malebolgia figure and we'll call it even?"
Re:A nightmare.....?? (Score:1)
What about Angela??? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about Angela?
I was pissed off when McFarlane killed her in Spawn #100 (she was the coolest Spawn character and we never got enough of her), saying that he would never bring her back, but now if Gaiman had some right on her that McFarlane disputed I wonder if he killed her just to piss Gaiman off.
And now that Gaiman's right on her are affirmed, what will he do with her, sell it to McFarlane so he can keep her dead or find some way to ressuscite her???
Re:What about Angela??? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do realise that she is fictional, but then again, when I buy comic books its to read about fictional characters, not real ones.
Also, your reply seem to imply that I only liked her because of her looks**, when I liked her for the combination of her looks (Angela being big, fat, and ugly just wouldn't be the same) AND her badass temper* (one can wonder how she ever became an Angel and not a Demon).
As for never being able to have sex with her, don't worry, there are plenty of women I will never be able to have sex with and I don't feel any worse for it
*feel free to say that me liking her temper only makes me a SM lover wanting to be dominated if you want.
**Hey, if I liked her only for the undressed aspect, there are plenty of porn flicks to choose from, and guess what, in a porn movie, the images actually MOVE and are from REAL WOMEN, and no
Re:What about Angela??? (Score:1)
Pretty much end of story (if you'll excuse the pun).
Re:What about Angela??? (Score:1)
Because he reeatedly said in the issues prior to 100 that in #100 he would kill one of the female character and that we wouldn't see her again, not in dreams, not in flashback, not because they need money and the fans loved her, not ever. He gave me the impression that he was playing that as a statement that he wasn't commercializing Spawn like other comics are (look, we deliberately killed a popular character, if we were overcommercializing we would have brought her back to life).
Now, if Gaiman has the rights to Angela, or at least enough right to it to take her and do more stories with her in it ( either as the lead character or as a sidekick), like with the Angela/Aria crossover (I hope I have this right, its starting to be 2/3 years now) then it kind of make the point mood.
Even worse, if Gaiman makes more story it can give him a bad rep (worse? apparently!): "Look, he killed another guy's character, the bastard".
Of course, all this lies on the assumption that her death was some kind of metamessage, as I interpreted it, if it isn't (which is quite possible, English isn't my native language) my point is totally moot.
Re:What about Angela??? (Score:1)
Rather than have to explain to fans why she suddenly disappeared, he simply bitchslapped [slashdot.org] the character -- making it look like it was done out of the non-commercial graciousness of his heart (yeah, right!). Now, after the lawsuit, he's going to be giving Gaimen back some seriously damaged (dead) goods.
Nice guy, hunh?
Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
they found that McFarlane and Gaiman had entered into agreements in 1992 and 1997 and that McFarlane had breeched both agreements
It's a rough world when you can't put pants on an agreement.
Spellcheckers. Gotta love 'em, gotta hate 'em.
How about the fact he ripped off Spawn? (Score:1)
Err...Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Err...Wrong (Score:1)
The black suit appeared in Secret Wars #8, published around 84, and was a Jim Shooter story. Amazing Spider-Man #299 (April 88) had the first full appearance of Venom on the last page, but the costume was determined to be a symbiote back in #258.
Re:Err...Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Err...Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Err...Wrong (Score:2)
Personally I don't think that counts as "creating", I would say McFarlane's design help "popularize" Venom.
Dollar Value is the Tell-All of a Char's Pop Value (Score:1)
Did anyone happen to see the jury makeup? (Score:3, Informative)
Then they are quoting comic books during the trial
In his closing statement, Gaimans' attorney said the case was about "keeping promises, being fair... and telling the truth."
McFarlane's lawyer's closing argument referred again to Gaiman's statement in the script to SPAWN #9: "It's your playground; I'm in for an afternoon on the swings."
Seemed funny to me.
Re:Did anyone happen to see the jury makeup? (Score:1)
I don't follow you. Why would a jury which disliked comics hurt his chances in a suit between two prominent comics creators over ownership of various comics characters? If anything, I'd think McFarlane would want to avoid comic fans; Gaiman is one of the most respected creators in the industry. McFarlane is commercially successful but far from respected.
Then they are quoting comic books during the trial :)
In his closing statement, Gaimans' attorney said the case was about "keeping promises, being fair... and telling the truth." McFarlane's lawyer's closing argument referred again to Gaiman's statement in the script to SPAWN #9: "It's your playground; I'm in for an afternoon on the swings."
That's not a quote from a comic, it's a comment Gaiman made to McFarlane in the script.
Mr Gaiman's journal (Score:3, Interesting)
Joan, who had the 4.00pm in the office sweep, collected. A mad rush to get down to the courtroom -- I left books, glasses, pens and my phone behind in the lawyers' office, and zoomed.
The jury ruled in our favour. I appreciate their work, and the incredibly hard work of the legal team, enormously. I regret that it needed to happen.
Tomorrow, with any luck, I get my phone back.
(and earlier....)
Lots of requests for interviews about the trial, which I'm saying no to. Win, lose, or win some counts and lose others, I think my position's going to be the same on that. As I explained to one journalist, it's not wrestling.
Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over my career I've worked with a number of people I'll unhelpfully lump together as artists. Graphic artists, web designers, would-be comic book artists, 3-D modellers and animators, 2-d artists. Great people, generally very sane. Of these artists, a significant number have owned and decorated their offices with McFarlane's Spawn figurines. And never just plain old Spawn. Spawn the Bloodaxe [spawn.com], Alien Spawn [spawn.com], Pirate Spawn [spawn.com], Raven Spawn [spawn.com], She Spawn [spawn.com], Wings of Redemption Spawn [spawn.com], Spawn VII [spawn.com], Dark Ages Spawn - Samurai Wars [spawn.com], Techno Spawn [spawn.com], or Spawn the Bloodaxe and Thunderhoof [spawn.com]. Each and every one more EXTREME than the last. There have been 22 different series of figurines. By my back of the envelope calculation, there are approximately seventy billion distinct Spawn variants.
What's the point? The character is alien and pointless. A friend at one point suggested that the Spawn comic books were for teenagers who found Batman not gritty enough and too realistic. Grade school kids who need something more EXTREME to try and shock their parents. The figurines may be very distinct, but they certainly are all EXTREME. Multiple layers of billowing clothing, draped in chains, with random pipes and hoses stuck in various unlikely places. Sure, they're detailed, but they're just random. The effect isn't cool, just busy. They certainly never approach the real creepiness of a master like H.R. Giger. They're not shocking, just childish. What exactly is the appeal of Spawn?
McFarlane really bothers me, his work (assuming the things coming out with his name all over them are his work) is disassociated with reality. Spawn is inane. McFarlane can even taint unrelated works. http://trigunner.giborama.com/trigunner/merchandis e/mcvash.html">McFarlane's interpretation of Vash from Trigun [giborama.com] was needlessly
draped in chains [giborama.com], just like Vash never was in the series, turning Vash into some bizarre bondage version of himself.
So what exactly is the draw of McFarlane and his work, especially Spawn? I certainly don't see it.
Re:Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:2)
Re:Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:2)
Re:Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:2)
Like The Bat, he's a tragic character. He was betrayed and murdered by people he trusted, forced to do the bidding of a Demon in return for the promise of seeing the woman he loved. When he did see the woman he loved, he was unrecognizable to her, so seeing her was pointless (betrayed again). Because of that, he rebelled against the wishes of the Demon and instead fights the Demon.
The draw is it's dark, gloomy and disturbing. But it's mixed with an exploration of things like honour and truth. The costumes, at least in the comics, have 'personality' and are almost alive with a will of their own. Very interesting!
Gaiman was a fitting artist to work on Spawn, as his series 'Sandman" had many similar qualities.
I think you mean, "Why do artists like Todd?" (Score:3, Informative)
Btw, and totally off-topic, even here Todd had webs flying like crazy around Spidey, especially when he was hanging upside-down, etc. The precursor to the chains...
His art was popular enough Marvel did their best to keep him, and gave him his own mag, "Spider-Man", sans prefix. I believe Todd got to write a few of these as well. But he didn't like the fact that his creative whims with Spidey were still kept in check by Marvel, and, iirc, Marvel was having a hard time paying him what he was worth.
*POOF* Todd goes solo and creates Spawn. What artist doesn't dream of a title where they have complete control, cradle to grave? It was several issues before Todd even let someone else do some artwork in the mag. I remember being surprised the first time I saw two names signed to a cover -- How could Todd let someone else control his "baby"?
Anyhow, heck, who in any field doesn't dream of being able to have final say-so on what happens at their job? If you want it done right [and have nobody to blame but you], do it yourself.
I would agree that Spawn's plot was often fairly juvenille (I haven't read in years, I'm afraid), but that's hardly the point. Todd can draw and dream up some pretty cool looking beasts, Spawn and Spidey being his two most popular. And this ability is so strong his success has bled right into other markets.
McFarlane is the Michael Jordan (or insert ball player of your generation) of comics, and what roundball player doesn't have a few inspirational pics of [a younger] Jordan tacked up on the wall?
Re:I think you mean, "Why do artists like Todd?" (Score:2)
He's probably more like Shaq than Jordan.
Spawn: a good idea, disastrously executed (Score:2)
As for Spawn's appearance, I thought his initial garb was striking, although I could have done without the chains. It must be said though that Spawn looks vaguely like a lot of comic-book characters--McFarlane didn't really conceive anything new. I take it that Spawn's costumes grew more and more elaborate as the comic progressed, and McFarlane learned that money could be made in toys. He's Barbie for straight males. As for why people like that sort of thing, I ask, why do so many people go in for cartoonish depictions of Hell, with their Etrigan-style monsters, colorful sets and backgrounds, and an overabundance of red and black costumes?
hyacinthus.
Re:Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:2)
And you could argue that Trigun isn't exactly an unrelated work. The very first manga volume featured a sketch of Spawn, and a hunky face shot of Todd himself. You can add Yasuhiro Nightow to the list of artists with Spawn figures gracing his office. Those toys were likely an inspiration for Trigun's creation.
Re:Why do artists like Spawn? (Score:1)
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you are tight for money, it doesn't pay to fight a legal battle. So now Nightspawn doesn't exit and it's been renamed to Nightbane.
Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... (Score:1)
Re:Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... (Score:2)
Last Post! (Score:1)
stable kernel is approaching is to notice that somebody starts to
spellcheck the kernel - it has so far never failed)
-- Linus Torvalds in the annoucement for pre-2.1.99-3
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...