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.