Spawn's Angela returns in Guardiians of the Galaxy?

Neil Gaiman And Brian Bendis Co-Write Angela in 'Guardians Of The Galaxay' ???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/neil-gaiman-marvel_n_2931276.html

Wow. I thought this dirty laundry was settled and put away? Was their really a huge outcry to do this? Is this anything more than spite? Or am I expecting to much from these people to have left well enough alone. No matter where you stand on the case itself, he won the case, but why do this if not for spite? Poor form Marvel.

Nice to see Bendis lending credibility to a trip down the high road.

This just feels like Gaiman giving a big 'fuck you' to McFarlane. Which is within his rights to be sure. But it just comes off unseemly.

Plus doesn't he still have to share any profits with Todd?

Joe Lee wrote:

Plus doesn't he still have to share any profits with Todd?

The way I understand it, either one of them, individually, can approve an appearance, as long as both of them, separately, get paid.

So they are going to pay third party royalty checks for a creator owned character, isn't that against company policy? At marvel anyway? Isnt that why the malibu
characters arent being used?

Maybe they have an exception for spite?

Ditko Fan TPM wrote:

Maybe they have an exception for spite?

LOL! But they probably do have an exception for Neil Gaiman along with an open door and a blank check.

That just makes the whole situation even more complicated. Like it needed further complexity.

Next, they should sell Miracleman movie options to both Fox and Universal, without getting permission from about half of the creators. Then let that all go to court.

And then, sample Alan Moore's dialogue and use it in rap lyrics, again only getting partial permission. And let THAT go to court.

How much more insane can this possibly get?

What I don't get is this was a cheap knock off of a cheap knock off. Any perceived value to the character was brought to it by the writers and artists on a very particular set of works.

Weren't Marvelman/Miracleman and crew blatantly and purposely obvious knock offs of the Marvel Family, created by the British publisher of the Fawcett characters to replace the Marvel Family when Captain Marvel ceased publishing when legally proven to be a cheap knock off of Superman. Alan Moore did a revival and others took over later, creating an early deconstructionist superhero yarn that was quite good.

I understand the dispute over ownership of the existing material for purposes of reprinting the Moore, and Gaiman runs, but the subsequent ownership and lawsuits confuse me. Am I wrong to find it ironic that people are now publishing a Superman knock-off called Supreme more blatant than Fawcett's Captain Marvel ever was, but people are fighting over (or were), fighting over the rights to publish future adventures of Marvelman/Miracleman, when the character was originally created because of a lawsuit, preventing one knock off from being published?

?

I get it, the irony.

The courts said stop withe the Shazam, and then long story short we get to now.

But I think it's a different situation now, times are different. Like you said National's suit against Fawcett, would not work today, just as Supreme would have been impossible back then. Moore's and Gaiman's Miracleman has roots in a specific set of stories now, starting over from scratch with a Doctor Miracle or Thaumaturgicalman would mean having to tell a new specific story.