60 MINUTES II, MARVEL 1

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

“60 Minutes II” ran a somewhat unfocused segment last night about our little industry. The good news is, there was nary a “POW or “BAM” in sight. The bad news is, I wasn’t entirely sure what the piece was about.

It seemed to be about comics in general and Marvel in specific. There was a good deal of attention paid to the translation of comics into movies, including footage shot during “Daredevil” in which apparently Elektra was slugging it out with some muggers on what appeared to be Sesame Street. At first I thought the main impetus for the piece was the arrival of Spider-Man on DVD. Then the piece broadened to comics as Hollywood fodder, featuring lots of time spent talking to Avi Arad. Nice puff piece so far.

Then, abruptly, the piece did a 180 and the reporter was grilling an obviously uncomfortable Stan Lee as to the raging discontent he felt over the fact that he doesn’t see dime one from the Spider-Man film. “Do you feel you were screwed?” asked the reporter. Even if Stan did feel that way, he’s far too much of a gentleman–and too canny a businessman–to cop to it. Besides, it’s not exactly news. He’s had decades to come to terms with the fact that he doesn’t get a share in the billions that his characters have generated for Marvel. The most he would admit was feeling a little down about it. But the reporter then talked about how Stan Lee was “unhappy” over not getting his fair share of Spider-Man…except Stan didn’t say that.

Then he started asking Avi Arad about whether Stan had gotten his “fair share” from the film. Arad said Yes, he had. Of course, since Stan (as he himself made quite clear) worked as “work for hire,” his “fair share” is nothing. “Fair” has nothing to do with “just.”

So Arad looked bad and Stan looked not thrilled.

So the reporter had opened a significant can of worms. Was his next stop Paul Levitz to discuss Siegel and Shuster? Chris Claremont to discuss X-Men? Gerry Conway to talk about how much of his material was lifted for the climax of the Spider-Man movie without so much as a by-your-leave? No. Instead he interviewed Art Spiegelman about how comics were reaching more adult audiences.

Weird. If you’re going to do a story that makes people look bad, see it through. If you’re doing basically a puff piece, then go with that. Don’t produce a puff piece with delusions of hard-hitting reporting. It’s just annoying.

PAD

15 comments on “60 MINUTES II, MARVEL 1”

  1. Wasn’t particularly impressed with 60 Minutes II’s fact checking either. No artist was ever mentioned as contributing to Spider-Man (note that for this sort of story, a *lot* more footage was filmed with Stan, Joe, Art, and Chris et al than was shown, and given some of Stan’s pronoun usage of “we” I strongly suspect Stan mentioned artists but CBS didn’t use that footage). And Maus did not win the Pulitzer Prize for Literature; it won a “special Pulitzer” in no particular category.

  2. Couldn’t agree more with your assessment. . .lest we forget, this is the same “hard-hitting” news program—or, at least a spinoff of such— that nonetheless laid down like lambs when the tobacco industry cleared its throat.

    Hmmm. Seems they can only scrutinize people (or subjects) that can’t fight back—or are too classy to fight back, as in Stan’s case.

    Maybe they ought to change the title to “60 Minutes of your life you’ll never get back?”

    Oh, forget it. That’d probably *increase* their ratings. The average fewer’d figure, “At least they ain’t bull

  3. I had to juggle between watching the 60 Minutes II segment or watching Enterprise. Thank heavens for Tivo!

    The segment was really rather horrible. It seemed unfocused and anytime they got to something – like Maus, they didn’t even stop to tell the orginal idea of setting the Jews as mice and the Nazis as Cats.

    Plus did anyone notice the only real comic images they showed on screen where either of Amazing Fantasy #15 or of Ultimate Spiderman. I think I saw maybe two shots of the real current Spiderman, by John Romita Jr.

    Too much footage of Ultimate Spiderman… Like that series needs anymore hype.

    Also they didn’t mention Steve Ditko once!!! I always thought it was an exagerated myth that Stan Lee was always given all the credit for the whole Marvel Universe. Granted I think he deserves that title, since he wrote for practicly every issue back then – and I’m not bothered when they say he’s the one who created the Marvel Universe.

    But for crying outloud the segment was long enough to throw the words “Steve Ditko” and “Jack Kirby” out there for one second. I mean they had like about 15 minutes. It’s sorta insulting to their work and memories to not at least mention their names at least once in 15 minutes.

    They talked about Stan Lee not getting the credit he was due while also not giving even verbal credit for the other creators who helped build the Marvel Universe.

    Very disapointed…

  4. It’s interesting how comics work.

    When I saw “Spider-Man” with my then-girlfriend, she was amazed (er… sorry) that the person who came up with Spider-Man also came up with the Hulk (the trailer for that movie preceded the film). She instantly thought that Lee would be like Stephen King or Michael Crichton and thus, rolling in dough, right?

    Then I explained to her how comics worked. I, of course, sort of accept it. But she, being a “civilian,” thought it was insane.

    “You mean, Kirsten Dunst, with her bad dye job, saw more money from this film than the creator of the book?”

    It was hard to justify.

    I’ve always dreamed of writing/directing a Spider-Man movie (I think most of us, especially those who are somewhat professional writers, have). And in my dream, the “writer’s” fee goes straight to Stan, because I planned on just transcribing his work anyway.

    Just because it’s “work for hire” doesn’t make it fair. And doesn’t mean it can never be rectified. But what do I know about contracts and this sort of thing?

  5. I watched 60 Minutes II last night and was uncomfortable with the way the reporter was trying to get Stan Lee to say “i’m pìššëd about it”.

    I watched it but i was waiting for something like that.

    I rarely pay attention to shows like 60 minutes, Nightline and 20/20.

    They have reporters with very low ethics.

    Lemme explain why this is my opinion.

    In his 2nd book, “Foley is Good”, Mick Foley (aka WWF’s Mankind) explains how ABC’s 20/20 contacted him for an interview about the new craze amongst kids, backyard wrestling. The reporter asks questions and then asks Mick if he would mind giving his opinions on a couple of videos… of backyard wrestling.

    The first video is tame… and Mick’s opinion is “Well, all kids fight/wrestle when they are young, it’s knowing your limits… no one got hurt”

    The 2nd video is different, very violent, high risks and that’s what Mick tells them. “I think that no one should do anything like that. It’s dangerous and could result in fatal injuries.”

    Interview over, the show is broadcasted. The result ? They put the first quote on the 2nd video.

    Makes Mick look like a careless idiot, and that he’s not happy.

    Read the whole thing (and the real quotes not my memory’s) in “Foley is Good” By Mick Foley. Page 49 starts the chapter.

    As far as Stan Lee not getting any money, it’s sad but he was hired to create characters, so technically he got paid. But think about this, Stan still get’s paid by Marvel and what does he have to do? PR?

  6. I personally missed the Whole thing. I was was watching Enterprise. I did hear about the Interview. My friend saw it. I really don’t like those new shows myself. They say they tell the truth. They don’t they tell their version of it. Course they are going to try to get Stan Lee Mad to tell them he got screwed. That would be good tv them. I’m glad i missed the interview.

    On a side not i really don’t like when any form of media try to write about comic books and the writers have no clue about comic book and end up looking big idiots. I was once reading a review for Direct to video Justice league Movie. The reviewer was all mad cause they made Green black. What he didn’t know was the The John Steward Green lantern isn’t replacement for Hal Jordon. They just decided to go with a different is all and if read the comics he would known that.

  7. “Don’t produce a puff piece with delusions of hard-hitting reporting.”

    I’m sorry, that seems to be the MANDATE of “60 Minutes Lite.” It’s probably what brings the ratings.

    I wasn’t as upset or annoyed by this piece as most comics geeks seem to be. The “should Stan Lee get compensated” flap is almost a non-issue with me; the man is extremely well-off thanks to his long association (and continued employment) with Marvel, and he’s widely acknowledged as the creator or co-creator of what’s come to be known as the Marvel Universe so it’s not as if he hasn’t been credited. I wasn’t bothered by the piece flitting from subject to subject; that’s what a lot of us do, after all, and I appreciated that they interviewed both Spiegelman and Ware and even touched on independent and alternative comics (and showed clips from Road to Perdition as their example of mature-comics-to-movies). The only bit that stuck in my craw was the impression they gave that Marvel comics are created by the people who, essentially, work in production. I mean, it was nice to see a woman in that bullpen picture, but production ain’t storytelling.

    – Elayne

  8. ” I wasn’t as upset or annoyed by this piece as most comics geeks seem to be.”

    Why the label ? Just because someone didn’t like it makes him/her a comic geek ?

    :rolleyes:

  9. Well, it is just a reality check really.

    We as honest fans of comics. I mean label us what you want..geeks, fans whatever.

    it goes to show that while comics are somewhat less looked down upon as an art form or a basic fan medium it is still far from being accepted by the general populace as a serious thing that grown adults actually appreciate and like.

    Until then we’ll get condescended to or not taken seriously at all.

    They probably got this piece handed down to them and had no idea on what to do with the piece anyway.

  10. I understand that RJ, having managed a comic store for over 2 years, but someone who posts here is surely not a “grown adult who doesn’t enjoy comics/sci-fi”

    It’s like being in denial.

  11. I wasn’t as upset or annoyed by this piece as most comics geeks seem to be. The “should Stan Lee get compensated” flap is almost a non-issue with me<<

    I don’t consider myself a “geek” per se. I wasn’t annoyed by it from a comics point of view. I was annoyed by it from a journalistic point of view. Because it was pretty evident that it was a “non-issue” to Stan as well, but the reporter endeavored to make it an issue and then talked about it after the fact as if it *was* an issue. That’s what annoyed me.

    PAD

  12. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/60II/main527513.shtml

    I’ve got a link to the CBS story in print if anyone wants to access it. I’m very appalled at this too. I know someone who once wished he could work for Marvel someday, and now he no longer wants to.

    The sad part? No doubt about it, Jemas and Quesada, not to mention even Arad himself don’t even give a dámņ what Stan’s fans think of them.

    It’s a real shame that Marvel’s been giving Stan Lee the shaft these days. I’d recommend that he sue them for such abominable insults, but who knows if he ever will?

    Worse still is that nobody cares whether comics are still being read by children or not. It’s news coverage like this that’s destroying the industry, and it’s a real shame too.

Comments are closed.