COMIC STORES 2023: 'IT'S NEARLY 2024 AND I'M MORE THAN CONCERNED' 4 4

[VintageComics]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:43 PM, thehumantorch said:

On 11/22/2023 at 3:34 AM, kimik said:

    Are you actually criticizing Kirby artwork?

Absolutely.  His early work on FF was awful.  

Wow. 

I absolutely loved it. Especially the round, pudgy Thing.

Kirby sucked as a realist, but his layouts and storytelling were so superb especially compared to his peers at the time. It's one of the reasons when I was younger that I didn't like him more. I needed to learn to appreciate it. 

To me Kirby is like beer. It's a bit of an acquired taste and as a kid I didn't appreciate it, but eventually you really begin to appreciate it. 

I'll have to go back and try to take a more discerning eye to it as it's been a while. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:43 PM, thehumantorch said:

Absolutely.  His early work on FF was awful.  

Thank you for saying that.  The thing looked like orange melted ice cream in some panels. 

[ttfitz]

On 11/21/2023 at 3:06 PM, VintageComics said:

On 11/21/2023 at 2:37 PM, ttfitz said:

Where's that famous Roy "looks like I was wrong" statement we've heard so much about?

You've already used that card once. Now it's your turn to admit you were wrong in one of our discussions. I've been waiting for over 2 years and you know where to find me. 

I'm sure what "used that card once" means; I just figured that with as many times as you have claimed to admit it when you are wrong this would have been the perfect opportunity to have done so, and I must have missed it. 

As for me in discussions with you, I'll be happy to do so if it ever happens.

[ttfitz]

On 11/21/2023 at 6:29 PM, Prince Namor said:

The type of sociopathic behavior it would take to just casually sabotage a $626 Million Dollar project may seem blasé to the common man in social scuttlebutt, but I can assure you, corporations do NOT see it as such. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 8:40 AM, Bosco685 said:

Clearly you forgot about all the TOO BIG TO FAIL corporations that then led to massive impacts to regional or worldwide industry impacts. Regulators only went after these companies because they had such a massive impact leading to shareholders and customers demanding action. So to assume an industry like movie studios doesn't have executives purposely undermining one another so as to boost their credibility for current and future positions would be avoiding the obvious: it happens too often.

Look at a film like The Fantastic Four (1994). It was created just so producer Bernd Eichinger could keep his option on the film rights, with no plans to really release it. He gave Roger Corman $1 Million to make the film, and three (3) weeks to shoot it.

I don't really have an opinion on the overall topic, but I'm not sure presenting an instance of "wasting" a million dollars to keep the rights really does much to address the idea of whether someone would blow things up on a $626 million dollar project with no return.

[ttfitz]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:40 AM, jsilverjanet said:

On 11/21/2023 at 6:57 PM, VintageComics said:

Stop making it personal. If you disagree then explain why you disagree and leave it at that. 

 

On 11/21/2023 at 6:57 PM, VintageComics said:

Did you even bother to read it or are you too well versed in reading minds and it's beneath you?

 

On 11/21/2023 at 6:57 PM, VintageComics said:

well before people became so closed minded and programmed to turn the "conspiracy theory" term into a dog whistle. 

Hey, he only goes after the message, not the messenger. He said so himself.

[Bosco685]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:26 PM, ttfitz said:

 

I don't really have an opinion on the overall topic, but I'm not sure presenting an instance of "wasting" a million dollars to keep the rights really does much to address the idea of whether someone would blow things up on a $626 million dollar project with no return.

It is the simplest example of how studio tampering does occur, and purposeful to not release a film. Especially when you watch the 'Doomed: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four' documentary to this day the cast and crew are still confused why this happened. It demonstrated the lack of care shown in order to achieve a selfish goal. It happens, no matter the dollar figure not achieving someone's comparable amount.

Did you get a chance to read 'John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood: How the Sci-Fi Classic Flopped at the Box Office But Continues to Inspire Fans and Filmmakers'?

[ttfitz]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

It demonstrated the lack of care shown in order to achieve a selfish goal. It happens, no matter the dollar figure not achieving someone's comparable amount.

Not disputing that it happens, just that whether your example really shows anything in regards to the particular item being discussed. Do you really think my spending $4 for a loaf of bread that I could get for $3 elsewhere because I didn't want to make another stop says anything at all about whether I'd be willing to spend $600 on a cell phone that regularly sells for $100?

On 11/22/2023 at 7:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

Did you get a chance to read 'John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood: How the Sci-Fi Classic Flopped at the Box Office But Continues to Inspire Fans and Filmmakers'?

I did not, because I haven't the least bit of interest in the subject of John Carter or whatever the director/studio/actors/AMC theaters might have done with it.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/23/2023 at 7:26 AM, ttfitz said:

I don't really have an opinion on the overall topic, but I'm not sure presenting an instance of "wasting" a million dollars to keep the rights really does much to address the idea of whether someone would blow things up on a $626 million dollar project with no return.

Right. The money was used as a way of cheaply keeping the rights to a property that was bought for only $250,000 in 1986 (to German producer Bernd Eichinger - a fire sale Stan Lee deal incidentally). But originally they planned to release the movie, and it was moving forward to do just that. 

Under the agreement, in order to keep those rights, a movie had to be in production by 1992. It was. And it was set for release as a low budget film. It was Marvel Studios co-founder Avi Arad, who made an eleventh-hour purchase of the movie from Eichinger and subsequently had all copies destroyed, without even seeing the movie for himself, because he felt its release would damage the Fantastic Four and Marvel brand. (I've never seen what the buy back price was, but I would imagine it was considerably more than $250,000).

THAT, is a completely different scenario than the John Carter deal.

We're talking about someone talking shareholders MONEY used for the making of a picture costing $626 million dollars and purposely sabotaging the PROFITABILITY of their financial investment return on it. That's a MAJOR felony FRAUD.

If THAT is what Michael D. Sellers is claiming - and I'm not sure it actually IS, then that is evidence of Felony Fraud that should have been actionable.

Shareholders WILL sue a company over fraud or even bad business if it takes money out of their pockets:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-trial-idUSKCN1LQ0W4/#:~:text=Shareholders representing 1%2C670 claims are seeking 9.2 billion,billion euros in penalties and fines so far.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-considering-suing-board-after-ceos-abrupt-firing-sources-2023-11-20/

Can a Corporate Shareholder Sue Their Corporation?

A corporate shareholder, commonly referred to as a stockholder, is an individual or entity that legally owns one or more shares of a corporation’s stock. This basically means that they own a certain percentage of the corporation and will experience the same financial benefits and risks as its founder. 

In addition, corporate shareholders also enjoy certain rights, such as voting on important decisions that affect the corporation (e.g., electing board members), attending annual shareholder meetings, inspecting the corporation’s records or books, and selling or purchasing shares. 

One other significant right that shareholders may exercise is the right to sue the corporation. However, this right is not always available. Specifically, there are certain circumstances that will permit a shareholder to sue their own company. For example, a corporate shareholder may sue a corporation when any of its directors or officers violate a fiduciary duty or conduct various other illegal activities like defrauding investors.

 

[Bosco685]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:20 PM, ttfitz said:

Not disputing that it happens, just that whether your example really shows anything in regards to the particular item being discussed. Do you really think my spending $4 for a loaf of bread that I could get for $3 elsewhere because I didn't want to make another stop says anything at all about whether I'd be willing to spend $600 on a cell phone that regularly sells for $100?

I did not, because I haven't the least bit of interest in the subject of John Carter or whatever the director/studio/actors/AMC theaters might have done with it.

Odd because it seems like the topic caught your interest. You should check out the documentary and book. Worth your time.

Meanwhile, the dollar figure fixation is a distraction. But if you needed something as big, read up on the Justice League (2017) story where the WB Chairman and WB Studios CEO purposely cut the film apart to hit the release date recognizing AT&T was wrapping up its purchase of the studio. If it was after the purchase, they jeopardized their pre-acquisition bonuses. It would make for a movie in itself.

[Bosco685]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

Right. The money was used as a way of cheaply keeping the rights to a property that was bought for only $250,000 in 1986 (to German producer Bernd Eichinger - a fire sale Stan Lee deal incidentally). But originally they planned to release the movie, and it was moving forward to do just that. 

Under the agreement, in order to keep those rights, a movie had to be in production by 1992. It was. And it was set for release as a low budget film. It was Marvel Studios co-founder Avi Arad, who made an eleventh-hour purchase of the movie from Eichinger and subsequently had all copies destroyed, without even seeing the movie for himself, because he felt its release would damage the Fantastic Four and Marvel brand. (I've never seen what the buy back price was, but I would imagine it was considerably more than $250,000).

THAT, is a completely different scenario than the John Carter deal.

We're talking about someone talking shareholders MONEY used for the making of a picture costing $626 million dollars and purposely sabotaging the PROFITABILITY of their financial investment return on it. That's a MAJOR felony FRAUD.

If THAT is what Michael D. Sellers is claiming - and I'm not sure it actually IS, then that is evidence of Felony Fraud that should have been actionable.

Shareholders WILL sue a company over fraud or even bad business if it takes money out of their pockets:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-trial-idUSKCN1LQ0W4/#:~:text=Shareholders representing 1%2C670 claims are seeking 9.2 billion,billion euros in penalties and fines so far.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-investors-considering-suing-board-after-ceos-abrupt-firing-sources-2023-11-20/

Can a Corporate Shareholder Sue Their Corporation?

A corporate shareholder, commonly referred to as a stockholder, is an individual or entity that legally owns one or more shares of a corporation’s stock. This basically means that they own a certain percentage of the corporation and will experience the same financial benefits and risks as its founder. 

In addition, corporate shareholders also enjoy certain rights, such as voting on important decisions that affect the corporation (e.g., electing board members), attending annual shareholder meetings, inspecting the corporation’s records or books, and selling or purchasing shares. 

One other significant right that shareholders may exercise is the right to sue the corporation. However, this right is not always available. Specifically, there are certain circumstances that will permit a shareholder to sue their own company. For example, a corporate shareholder may sue a corporation when any of its directors or officers violate a fiduciary duty or conduct various other illegal activities like defrauding investors.

You did read in an earlier post where I mentioned shareholders using a class action lawsuit if they could clearly determine corporate officer misuse or misrepresentation of disclosed results? The key item is clear misrepresentation.

A single movie and what occured behind the scenes in a multi-billion dollar company (Disney annual revenue was $42.3 Billion in 2012). If you think shareholders fixated on one movie that year when revenue was up 3% from the previous year, that would assume a level of miniscule balance sheet details they don't sink to. They will focus on the quarterly and annual financial disclosures.

[VintageComics]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:20 PM, ttfitz said:

On 11/22/2023 at 7:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

Did you get a chance to read 'John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood: How the Sci-Fi Classic Flopped at the Box Office But Continues to Inspire Fans and Filmmakers'?

I did not, because I haven't the least bit of interest in the subject of John Carter or whatever the director/studio/actors/AMC theaters might have done with it.

You should, because it's the $300 Million elephant in the room. It's basically Corman's FF multiplied X 300. 

You can read a sample of the book on Amazon and pages 1-5 (scroll to roughly the middle) give a good intro to how the movie seemed like it was made to fail compared to all other movies at the time. 

https://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-Hollywood-Michael-Sellers/dp/0615682316?asin=0615682316&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

[Prince Namor]

On 11/23/2023 at 8:42 AM, VintageComics said:

You should, because it's the $300 Million elephant in the room. It's basically Corman's FF multiplied X 300. 

Except you have the details of the Corman movie all wrong. It was Marvel, buying back the movie, who cancelled it.

In reality, the decision to do a low budget movie version for cheap, to retain the cheaply purchased rights, turned out to be a profitable move.

The guy who owned the rights, most likely doubled what he paid for them and spent to make the movie. 

[D2]

On 11/22/2023 at 3:43 PM, thehumantorch said:

Absolutely.  His early work on FF was awful.  

I have grown to appreciate what Jack Kirby has done for the comic industry. He is dynamic and impactful. He is a pioneer. 

I hate his work though. His raw pencils are much better than the final work, but I have zero interest in buying anything of his era.

The original X-Men stuff is eye poison. 

[Prince Namor]

Kirby in 1954, while doin 25-30 pages a month:

Kirby in 1958, while doin 25-30 pages a month:

Kirby in 1962, while doin 107 pages a month:

Kirby in 1964, while doin 80+ pages a month:

Kirby in 1966, while doin 60 pages a month:

[Prince Namor]

In 1962, while averaging 105-107 pages a month, that also included Kirby doing 8 covers each month.

[Black_Adam]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:53 PM, D2 said:

I have grown to appreciate what Jack Kirby has done for the comic industry. He is dynamic and impactful. He is a pioneer. 

I hate his work though. His raw pencils are much better than the final work, but I have zero interest in buying anything of his era.

The original X-Men stuff is eye poison. 

With the right inker, Kirby's 1960s stuff was great. Not a fan of his 1970s work though.

[D2]

On 11/22/2023 at 11:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

In 1962, while averaging 105-107 pages a month, that also included Kirby doing 8 covers each month.

All that drawing and he never got any better…

I kid. It is truly a feat. I can see that. He brought a new level to the game. I can appreciate what he did.

 

On 11/23/2023 at 12:01 AM, Black_Adam said:

With the right inker, Kirby's 1960s stuff was great. Not a fan of his 1970s work though.

There were a few pencil covers I saw by him. Honestly, I think all inks did him dirty 

[Ryan.]

This book gave me a new appreciation for Kirby's contributions to the medium, not necessarily for the technical art style but the innovation in dynamism that pushed Marvel right past DC as the much cooler and more exciting superhero publisher in the Sixties.

[ttfitz]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:27 PM, Bosco685 said:

Odd because it seems like the topic caught your interest.

You apparently missed the bolded part below when I first responded:

On 11/22/2023 at 7:26 PM, ttfitz said:

 

I don't really have an opinion on the overall topic, but I'm not sure presenting an instance of "wasting" a million dollars to keep the rights really does much to address the idea of whether someone would blow things up on a $626 million dollar project with no return.

 

[ttfitz]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

In reality, the decision to do a low budget movie version for cheap, to retain the cheaply purchased rights, turned out to be a profitable move.

That's what it sounded like to me - going only off of what was said here and was not disputed.