Ed Brubabker Criticizes Disney/Marvel For Lack Of Winter Soldier Royalties

[Username taken]

A. Work for hire, He knows the system
B. He modified character not created him

Kelly Sue/Soy/Jamie McKelvie redesign Ms Marvel into Captain Marvel, Someone turned Dick Grayson into Nightwing, Someone turned Jason Todd into Red Hood. They are redesigning preexisting characters and when you do that it take away measure of control you have over an idea. I am not going to pretend that these changes aren't Significant they are practical new characters. One of my biggest pet peeves is the tying of original concepts to existing characters the Immortal Hulk to me is not the Hulk meaning Al Ewing could have easily created new character called the Immortal who gets their power from the one below all. We could have new character called Ghost Spider with no ties to Spiderman, Instead of Hulkverine or Weapon H, we could have Clayton Cortez some with some cool name and design.But for sheer safety of better sales we have seen over and over stuff like Citizen V, Ronin, Iron Patriot, etc attached to old characters first not an original concept.

Is Marvel being a dick in this case? No doubt but everyone knows the business, Brubaker could have easily held the idea and got an artist and put out an indie book called the Winter Soldier. And obviously it would sell less and might not even be as popular. Which bring us to the point as much he add new elements to the character, People primarily care about this character because it is Bucky and who has ties to Cap America. I think every creator who makes something for Marvel or DC knows the drill, You can make something original that 100% percent yours and maybe doesn't take off OR you can get payed well and have the power Marvel push your idea to masses attach to preexisting concept. Brubaker has the right complain to make things better for future creators but this is the business.

Part of it is our fault for not supporting indie stuff more giving these creators the freedom to fully profit from their ideas. But other part of is creators going to work for Marvel or DC. I mean Image exists but we can't tell creators to turn down more money and chance to work on the characters they have love all their lives BUT in long run they are hurt themselves. I can't blame them for not wanting to struggle and grow a thing but if they all said screw Marvel and DC they would be in better shape.

Just my thoughts

Quoted for truth.

Especially the part about supporting indie work. This is one of the reasons why most prominent creators these days don’t spend years in Marvel or DC without building up their indie work. Ultimately, the creators can only get so much from working on existing IPs.

Does Brubaker deserve something for his work on the Winter Soldier- absolutely. But is Marvel/Disney obligated to give him something- yes, but up to a point because it was work for hire and these characters were originally created by someone else. It’s one of those legal grey areas that I really hate but creators should be aware of when they get into work with Marvel or DC (they should really look at what guys like Neil Gaiman and James Robinson did with DC, I believe those guys have ownership over some of their creations at DC).

[numberthirty]

I don’t know what nerve I struck but damn, it’s a good one. We all worry about legacy and providing for our families when we’re gone. That’s not exclusive to the arts or comics. I’ve worked for many international companies and made them millions in return for a modest salary. That’s the exchange. That’s how it works. Like I said, you make money for others or you make money for yourself. One day you realize it and make a change or you don’t.

Ed’s wallowing in self pity over past endeavors is no different from what I did and where I was when I left the corporate world. I was tired of making money for people that weren’t me. But I don’t dwell in their success that is still based on my hard work. There’s no point in that. And I do constantly hear about it. If it weren’t for me and systems I created and implemented, several of the largest real estate investment companies in the world would have lost huge contracts. I’ve made other people millionaires but not myself. It’s hard sometimes and one sympathizes.

But when it comes up, and it does, I don’t dwell on it. I think about what I do have. I don’t think about what if’s or maybe I should haves. I think about today and I think about the future. I try not to think about yesterday. I can’t change what has happened but I can prepare for what is to come.

I get that the righteousness of youth is fiery and I love it. I hope yours never fades and I hope you don’t have to experience things the way that Ed has or I have. Hell, even comics has broken my heart. I could tell you a great story about my LoSH pitch that got turned down in favor of the threeboot. Or the time I pitched a series called Hypertime and got three issues into scripting before getting the axe.

Ed is a great writer and decisions he might regret are being shoved in his face right now. That sucks. I love his work and look forward to his next project. His X-Men run is actually a favorite. I finally picked up Bad Weekend so I’m in for a Criminal reread.

Here's the really obvious problem with the comparison that you are attempting to make...

The only way it would be anything like "Apples..."/"Apples..."?

Would be if the comics that Brubaker wrote had made a shipping container full of money that he only saw a "Work For Hire..." cut of.

Which everyone knows is not what happened.

Someone used the guy's work almost note-for-note a second time, and would have right around "None..." of the cash they have made without his work.

The guy has never grumbled about what he made off of the comics because that was the work for hire.

So, yeah...

It's not really anything like your personal situation.

[JackDaw]

Part of it is our fault for not supporting indie stuff more giving these creators the freedom to fully profit from their ideas. But other part of is creators going to work for Marvel or DC. I mean Image exists but we can't tell creators to turn down more money and chance to work on the characters they have love all their lives BUT in long run they are hurt themselves. I can't blame them for not wanting to struggle and grow a thing but if they all said screw Marvel and DC they would be in better shape.

Just my thoughts

I agree with most of what you said (in the full post).

But I really don’t understand why a “mix and match” strategy (i.e. doing some Marvel/ DC work and some indie work) isn’t a perfectly good option for aspiring writers and artists.

The guaranteed money (from work for hire) prevents starvation in their early career, and exposure to the (fairly) wide DC/ Marvel surely helps their indie sales. And I would assume exposure to DC/ Marvel editors and support systems will probably provide some useful professional knowledge to take into other future ventures.

It’s just a matter of getting balance right?

[Mike_Murdock]

I always appreciate when companies give creators a cut of the profits of something based on their work for hire, but I always acknowledge they don't have to. This specific scenario is streaming so I'm honestly more worried whether or not the direct creators of the project get whatever royalties their respective guilds would require.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I must admit i am baffled why you are so concerned on some one being referred to by first name, when the overall context makes it absolutely clear who is being referred to. (It just feels like a diversionary tactic, an avoidance of the real substance of the debate.)

Do you regard calling some one by their first name by itself rude? Or really pretending close acquaintance??

When it comes to authors or celebrities who most people have a parasocial relationship to -- we know them through their work and interviews but we don't really know them personally or in real life -- a pretense at familiarity is a bit Jejune. As someone from the UK you must have familiarity over resistance from some over referring to Boris Johnson via his first name rather than his last because that's part of his cult of personality, trying to come across as someone you know.

In this context when you have posters openly insult and condescend to Brubaker, them using the first name and pretending as if they are offering sage advice to an industry established professional felt offensive to me, and I felt that I had to call it out.

At work if I’m referred to as Mr Daw, I know a bollocking is about to be delivered. And being referred to as Daw would suggest I’m about to be fired.

Well that's your co-workers and nobody here are coworkers. I mean Roy Thomas himself in his essay for The Hollywood Reporter pointed out this custom: (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...y-guest-column)
"Both men were, I think, wrong, and that's why Riesman is so ill-advised to use nearly every opportunity he gets to weight things in Jack's favor and against Stan. (By the way, if someone objects to my referring to Jack Kirby as well by his first name, it's because the two of us were on a first-name basis from 1965 till the last time we met, sometime in the 1980s. I considered him then, and I consider him now, to be by far the greatest superhero artist in the history of the medium, and, along with Stan, one of its preeminent pop-culture geniuses.)"

Does Brubaker deserve something for his work on the Winter Soldier- absolutely. But is Marvel/Disney obligated to give him something- yes, but up to a point because it was work for hire and these characters were originally created by someone else.

I completely agree with this. Nobody is saying Brubaker deserves ownership of Bucky but definitely acknowledgement and remuneration for his contributions to Bucky.

I always appreciate when companies give creators a cut of the profits of something based on their work for hire, but I always acknowledge they don't have to.

"they don't have to" is a dangerous mindset and a dangerous assumption. The only reason for that is that the comics business is a non-unionized business allowing companies to abuse and exploit and mistreat laborers in a way that no other media industry would get away with it (save video games I think).

This specific scenario is streaming so I'm honestly more worried whether or not the direct creators of the project get whatever royalties their respective guilds would require.

In the case of streaming that's made by Union-Represented Talent so the creators and actors and others have union deals going with them. The Unions ensure that they don't have to worry or rely on Kevin Feige's generosity and so on. Hollywod Unions are not always the best or most effective but they do exist and they protect its members from the kind of daily exploitation that's the bread and butter of Marvel and DC.

To be honest it's a little ghoulish to see one unionized media (Hollywood) suck the blood out of a non-unionized media (comics). Damon Lindelof's Watchmen TV show is going to give him a squarer deal than Alan Moore ever got or will ever get and in all his time promoting that, Lindelof -- prize hack that he is -- never once called attention to that or brought that to light.

But I really don’t understand why a “mix and match” strategy (i.e. doing some Marvel/ DC work and some indie work) isn’t a perfectly good option for aspiring writers and artists.

"perfectly good option" is a mealy-mouthed phrase. You are passing off what is a compromise for survival and creativity as a panacea, when it isn't.

The guaranteed money (from work for hire) prevents starvation in their early career,

"Work-for-Hire" contracts don't prevent starvation. They don't provide healthcare, or any company benefits (which Marvel/DC would have been obliged to do at least to a token level had they not designated all of their employees as freelancers).

...and exposure to the (fairly) wide DC/ Marvel surely helps their indie sales.

No it doesn't. There's usually no connection. And it's frankly irrelevant. Garth Ennis for instance has made more bank on his independent titles (Preacher, The Boys) than his licensed superhero stuff and in his case people read his licensed stuff (The Punisher) to see if it has traces of the stuff in his non-licensed stuff.

Fundamentally it's not the characters that sell, it's the writer and artist that sells the characters.

And I would assume exposure to DC/ Marvel editors and support systems will probably provide some useful professional knowledge to take into other future ventures.

*chortle* You are adorable.

[JackDaw]

When it comes to authors or celebrities who most people have a parasocial relationship to -- we know them through their work and interviews but we don't really know them personally or in real life -- a pretense at familiarity is a bit Jejune. As someone from the UK you must have familiarity over resistance from some over referring to Boris Johnson via his first name rather than his last because that's part of his cult of personality, trying to come across as someone you know.

In this context when you have posters openly insult and condescend to Brubaker, them using the first name and pretending as if they are offering sage advice to an industry established professional felt offensive to me, and I felt that I had to call it out.



Well that's your co-workers and nobody here are coworkers. I mean Roy Thomas himself in his essay for The Hollywood Reporter pointed out this custom: (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...y-guest-column)
"Both men were, I think, wrong, and that's why Riesman is so ill-advised to use nearly every opportunity he gets to weight things in Jack's favor and against Stan. (By the way, if someone objects to my referring to Jack Kirby as well by his first name, it's because the two of us were on a first-name basis from 1965 till the last time we met, sometime in the 1980s. I considered him then, and I consider him now, to be by far the greatest superhero artist in the history of the medium, and, along with Stan, one of its preeminent pop-culture geniuses.)"




I completely agree with this. Nobody is saying Brubaker deserves ownership of Bucky but definitely acknowledgement and remuneration for his contributions to Bucky.



"they don't have to" is a dangerous mindset and a dangerous assumption. The only reason for that is that the comics business is a non-unionized business allowing companies to abuse and exploit and mistreat laborers in a way that no other media industry would get away with it (save video games I think).



In the case of streaming that's made by Union-Represented Talent so the creators and actors and others have union deals going with them. The Unions ensure that they don't have to worry or rely on Kevin Feige's generosity and so on. Hollywod Unions are not always the best or most effective but they do exist and they protect its members from the kind of daily exploitation that isn't the bread and butter of Marvel and DC.

To be honest it's a little ghoulish to see one unionized media (Hollywood) suck the blood out of a non-unionized media (comics). Damon Lindelof's Watchmen TV show is going to give him a squarer deal than Alan Moore ever got or will ever get and in all his time promoting that, Lindelof -- prize hack that he is -- never once called attention to that or brought that to light.



"perfectly good option" is a mealy-mouthed phrase. You are passing off what is a compromise for survival and creativity as a panacea, when it isn't.



"Work-for-Hire" contracts don't prevent starvation. They don't provide healthcare, or any company benefits (which Marvel/DC would have been obliged to do at least to a token level had they not designated all of their employees as freelancers).



No it doesn't. There's usually no connection. And it's frankly irrelevant. Garth Ennis for instance has made more bank on his independent titles (Preacher, The Boys) than his licensed superhero stuff and in his case people read his licensed stuff (The Punisher) to see if it has traces of the stuff in his non-licensed stuff.

Fundamentally it's not the characters that sell, it's the writer and artist that sells the characters.



*chortle* You are adorable.

Loads of people in UK call Boris Johnson, Boris...and nobody seriously thinks it’s suggesting that the people doing it are trying to imply being good friends. Or by itself insulting. I think it’s effectively neutral here, certainly much more so (in UK) of just using some ones surname...there’s a tendency to feel if some one use surname only, there are treating you as subservient.

I don’t agree with you that “work for hire” is automatically a bad option.

I feel your view on that ignores many practical benefits...look at all the experienced professional people (in comics industry and countless other areas of work) that use it to get some or all of their income.

They don’t all do that because they have no other option or lack intelligence...they do it because they think it’s best option for them. (I work in a completely different field but can certainly vouch that my years as “my own boss” were more stressful and less remunerative than my years as a paid lackey. I don’t think that is really unusual.)

Why do you think it’s irrelevant that some ones DC or Marvel work may increase their other sales? (I take your point it works the other way as well, but so what...it’s a two way street..and both benefit the writers and artists.)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Loads of people in UK call Boris Johnson, Boris...and nobody seriously thinks it’s suggesting that the people doing it are trying to imply being good friends. Or by itself insulting. I think it’s effectively neutral here, certainly much more so (in UK) of just using some ones surname...there’s a tendency to feel if some one use surname only, there are treating you as subservient.

Well Kieron Gillen points out (https://kierongillen.tumblr.com/post...ts-on-brexit): "If this were a board game, I’d be congratulating Johnson (And I think we should all stop playing into his brand by calling him “Boris”)"

And in the Harry Potter books everyone uses last names to people not known or familiar or in the case of Hagrid someone who's both.

I don’t agree with you that “work for hire” is automatically a bad option.

By your own admission you don't know a great deal about the comics business as a whole. "Work-for-Hire" or freelance in comics is not the same as in other media.

They don’t all do that because they have no other option or lack intelligence...they do it because they think it’s best option for them.

The best as in "Best of a bad and terrible situation". And I don't think "lack intelligence" was ever an issue. Getting screwed over a contract doesn't make you dumb or the person who finagled you smart. That's why it's called "low cunning" after all.

Why do you think it’s irrelevant that some ones DC or Marvel work may increase their other sales?

It's the equivalent of saying someone's solo album only did well because they used to be part of a big band. It's true on the most basic level but it's not representative because breaking solo after a band is a rare thing to achieve.

And in a lot of cases it doesn't really represent the picture. Like take Chip Zdarsky and Matt Fraction. They worked on superhero titles and they have done indie. And yet their creator-owned Sex Criminals sold and did well. Now is that because of their superhero work because Sex Criminals is extremely different from their superhero work. Likewise, in the case of Zdarsky the superhero stuff he did before (Howard the Duck, his Spectacular Spider-Man run) were cult successes at the time and not really well known. In the case of Fraction he started out having worked in creator-owned (Casanova) before doing stuff for Marvel (Iron Man, Iron Fist, Hawkeye) and then coming to independent. And again Sex Criminals is totally different from what he did before.

Kieron Gillen has had greater success and fame for his indie work (Uber, Die, WicDiv, Phonogram, Once and Future) than for his licensed work for Marvel ("Kid Loki", X-Men, Young Avengers) or Dynamite (Peter Cannon Thunderbolt, owned by Morisi's family estate which they licensed him to do).

[Coin Biter]

Loads of people in UK call Boris Johnson, Boris...and nobody seriously thinks itÂ’s suggesting that the people doing it are trying to imply being good friends. Or by itself insulting. I think itÂ’s effectively neutral here, certainly much more so (in UK) of just using some ones surname...thereÂ’s a tendency to feel if some one use surname only, there are treating you as subservient.

That is a misleading comparison in my view. Boris is part of his branding; it is a name which has been deliberately cultivated in the public eye, as part of his clubbable, affable, bumbling image. (An image far removed from the reality.) At least, that is the uncharitable conclusion, to which I happen to subscribe. You might equally say that it is because in the UK Boris is an unusual name, and far less common than Johnson. As it happens, I understand that his family and friends call him Alex, his first name. You will notice that when Rachel Johnson is on TV she will call her brother the Prime Minister. This is no doubt to emphasise that she is unbiased, but in any case I have not heard her or Stanley Johnson refer to him by his second name.

I genuinely do not think politicians, who have encouraged familiarity from an electorate, are at all a reliable guide, incidentally. Sure, Tony Blair was often referred to as Tony, but you would not call Alan Sugar Alan, because he has not encouraged that kind of familiarity. Although I hope that he would not be pompous enough to insist on being called Sir Alan outside the confines of that programme.

I recognise this is very much a side issue to this conversation, but it is one that happens to interest me

On the main topic I think it is clearly inequitable that Brubaker, just one of the many artists and writers who have contributed story ideas, characters (or individual conceptions of characters) which have been used as part of the MCU or DCEU, should not receive compensation for that. I am surprised that is controversial, to be honest. That Disney or any of the other corporations may not wish to set a precedent is understandable from their perspective, and no doubt if we were working for them we would have to at least tacitly support their line, but as we are not (for the most part!), we do not have to.

External criticism can change corporate behaviour if they feel they have more to lose by not making a change. However, I have nothing much to add to the points that have been made already on this topic, so will leave it at that.

[JackDaw]

That is a misleading comparison in my view. Boris is part of his branding; it is a name which has been deliberately cultivated in the public eye, as part of his clubbable, affable, bumbling image. (An image far removed from the reality.) At least, that is the uncharitable conclusion, to which I happen to subscribe. You might equally say that it is because in the UK Boris is an unusual name, and far less common than Johnson. As it happens, I understand that his family and friends call him Alex, his first name. You will notice that when Rachel Johnson is on TV she will call her brother the Prime Minister. This is no doubt to emphasise that she is unbiased, but in any case I have not heard her or Stanley Johnson refer to him by his second name.

I genuinely do not think politicians, who have encouraged familiarity from an electorate, are at all a reliable guide, incidentally. Sure, Tony Blair was often referred to as Tony, but you would not call Alan Sugar Alan, because he has not encouraged that kind of familiarity. Although I hope that he would not be pompous enough to insist on being called Sir Alan outside the confines of that programme.

I recognise this is very much a side issue to this conversation, but it is one that happens to interest me

Good to see you posting again. (Probably just me being inattentive, or just looking at “wrong” topics but not seen any of your posts for a goodly time.)

I really only mentioned Boris specifically because our colleague Revolutionary-Jack mentioned him first. (Usually do my best to avoid thinking about Bojo.)

But is it really misleading? My main line of argument was simply that in UK it’s not usually insulting to refer to some one by their first name only, nor does it really imply close knowledge of some one (that could be altered by specific context, of course.)

Do you disagree with that general point?

[JackDaw]

Well Kieron Gillen points out (https://kierongillen.tumblr.com/post...ts-on-brexit): "If this were a board game, I’d be congratulating Johnson (And I think we should all stop playing into his brand by calling him “Boris”)"

And in the Harry Potter books everyone uses last names to people not known or familiar or in the case of Hagrid someone who's both.



By your own admission you don't know a great deal about the comics business as a whole. "Work-for-Hire" or freelance in comics is not the same as in other media.



The best as in "Best of a bad and terrible situation". And I don't think "lack intelligence" was ever an issue. Getting screwed over a contract doesn't make you dumb or the person who finagled you smart. That's why it's called "low cunning" after all.



It's the equivalent of saying someone's solo album only did well because they used to be part of a big band. It's true on the most basic level but it's not representative because breaking solo after a band is a rare thing to achieve.

And in a lot of cases it doesn't really represent the picture. Like take Chip Zdarsky and Matt Fraction. They worked on superhero titles and they have done indie. And yet their creator-owned Sex Criminals sold and did well. Now is that because of their superhero work because Sex Criminals is extremely different from their superhero work. Likewise, in the case of Zdarsky the superhero stuff he did before (Howard the Duck, his Spectacular Spider-Man run) were cult successes at the time and not really well known. In the case of Fraction he started out having worked in creator-owned (Casanova) before doing stuff for Marvel (Iron Man, Iron Fist, Hawkeye) and then coming to independent. And again Sex Criminals is totally different from what he did before.

Kieron Gillen has had greater success and fame for his indie work (Uber, Die, WicDiv, Phonogram, Once and Future) than for his licensed work for Marvel ("Kid Loki", X-Men, Young Avengers) or Dynamite (Peter Cannon Thunderbolt, owned by Morisi's family estate which they licensed him to do).

1/ Lets see what Coinbiter says about use of first name/ surname in general UK usage. (Guess we can all agree that it is a tangent to main debate, albeit an interesting tangent.)

2/ I find your examples of guys that achieved more success outside in indie projects than in their Marvel or DC work interesting on several levels. Does it not rather prove my point that experienced, talented pros can look at some work for hire contracts and say “yes, in this specific case, it is an attractive proposition”? (Otherwise they could work exclusively on indie projects.) There are a number of successful experienced writers (and artists) who work a wide range of stuff that continue to do some work for hire. (e.g Kurt Busiek and Peter David.)

3/ I have a quick ponder if I can think of many examples of writers were there is a reasonable case to say their D.C./Marvel work substantially bolstered their overall career. My gut feeling is Grant Morrison and Gail Simone are two, but I will ponder this more.

[Coin Biter]

Good to see you posting again. (Probably just me being inattentive, or just looking at “wrong” topics but not seen any of your posts for a goodly time.)

I really only mentioned Boris specifically because our colleague Revolutionary-Jack mentioned him first. (Usually do my best to avoid thinking about Bojo.)

But is it really misleading? My main line of argument was simply that in UK it’s not usually insulting to refer to some one by their first name only, nor does it really imply close knowledge of some one (that could be altered by specific context, of course.)

Do you disagree with that general point?

Oh, I haven‘t posted regularly for a looong time No particular reason - maybe different responsibilities have been a factor. Thanks for asking, and hope all is well with you.

I don‘t think it‘s necessarily insulting, no, but it very much depends on the individual. Some people would definitely find it presumptuous. I do think the modes of address have shifted over the last few years, so for example if I was to contact someone with whom the company has a business relationship, I would probably use their first name (depending on how they were referred to on their company profile, for example). This is as much because it‘s actually easier now to cause offence by using the wrong preferred title.

But yes, if I was referring to someone I didn‘t know in the third person, I would use the surname and I think most people would - putting individuals like the PM to one side. It does tend to suggest familiarity, unless you‘re talking about someone who is best known by the first name.

It‘s an interesting question, anyway, because things have definitely changed fairly subtly from where they were 20-25 years ago.

[JackDaw]

Oh, I haven‘t posted regularly for a looong time No particular reason - maybe different responsibilities have been a factor. Thanks for asking, and hope all is well with you.

I don‘t think it‘s necessarily insulting, no, but it very much depends on the individual. Some people would definitely find it presumptuous. I do think the modes of address have shifted over the few years, so for example if I was to contact someone with whom the company has a business relationship, I would probably use their first name (depending on how they were referred to on their company profile, for example). This is as much because it‘s actually easier now to cause offence by using the wrong preferred title.

But yes, if I was referring to someone I didn‘t know in the third person, I would use the surname and I think most people would - putting individuals like the PM to one side. It does tend to suggest familiarity, unless you‘re talking about someone who is best known by the first name.

It‘s an interesting question, anyway, because things have definitely changed fairly subtly from where they were 20-25 years ago.

I’m fine (got a small case of lockdown boredom...but guess that’s afflicting large majority of UK...and overall lucky it’s not had any impact on job.)

You’re certainly right about UK name/ title usage changing in last 20-25 years.

I think..on reflection..that you are right on most usual way to refer to most celebrities in UK is by surname only. (e.g. “Greenwood scores”, “Hamilton recovers” to quote two BBC headlines today.) So..oh dear..I got things wrong, as happens a time or three.

In conversation talking about some one not present, I think I would also follow same convention (surname only)for celebrities, but for non celebrities would be full name or just first name for friends.

In directly addressing some one..I suppose there’s only one “rule” find out what they want to be called and use that. (Think most people now suggest first name. As I’ve said earlier...in practically all my recent jobs..any conversation that has started “Mr Daw” has tended to be an indicator of impending storm, and pretty sure “Daw” would indicate typhoon class trouble.)

[Panic]

When it comes to using the names of creators when online I will usually start off with using the full name (eg. 'Alan Moore'), and then use either their first or last names depending on how it feels. In a paragraph I might use 'Moore', then move to 'Alan' to stop it getting repetitive, or sometimes to soften what might be construed as a hostile tone. On Star Wars topics if I feel my post is looking like I'm ripping into George Lucas too much, I might throw in a 'George' rather than the more impersonal 'Lucas'.

I've seen people here who get annoyed by posters using Marvel characters' first names when talking about them, because they feel the poster is talking about them like they're a real person that they're friends with; I don't think that's why people do that at all. I might refer to Iron Fist as 'Danny' to differentiate between him and former Iron Fists, or because it's just quicker to type out five characters rather than nine; it's never because I'm pretending we're best mates or I can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I just don't get why some people get offended over this kind of thing.

[Tofali]

Creator greed always brings out the ugly in the industry.

Wow just WOW! This is a take

[DT Winslow]

The name thing is a great diversionary tactic. I am quite impressed. Almost as good a tactic as the selective responding. ThatÂ’s always been a favorite. Will it happen again? Stay tuned, True Believers!

On the actual subject. Why is Brubaker owed anything at this point in time?