STAN LEE ON 60 MINUTES

Wednesday's edition of CBS's 60 Minutes featured a story about Stan Lee's recent court victory over Marvel. Recently there had been some small steps made in the direction of crediting artists like Ditko and Kirby for their creative contributions to the Marvel Universe and not just their ability to draw. But this show set back those efforts by 50 years. I'm used to Stan forgetting to mention that anyone else, besides him, had a hand in the creation of those comic book icons. I don't think he has any evil ulterior motive in this, it's just Stan being Stan. It can drive a fanboy nuts, but I still like Stan at the end of the day.

But the reporting on Stan's victory was totally misleading. 60 minutes gave the impression that the court had ruled that Stan deserved a boatload of money because he had created these characters. And reporter Bob Simon spent his entire time asking Lee what it FELT like to "Hit the Jackpot!" CBS news, and I use that term loosely, was going at this story in the same way that they report on someone who has won the lottery.

The entire point of why Stan sued Marvel was ignored or glossed over. Stan, unlike Kirby or Ditko, had signed a contract with Marvel several years ago covering many aspects of his association with them. One of the points of the contract was that he would receive a percentage on any profits generated by movies made using Marvel characters such as Spider-man, Hulk etc. When the Spider-man movie was a hit, Marvel did not pay Lee per the contract. That's all. The court did not rule that Stan had created anything. It just said that Marvel had not lived up to it's end of the contract.

But you wouldn't know this from the CBS story. The scary thing is, are all the stories that you see on 60 Minutes this misleading? When they do a story on terrorists making dirty bombs or the ice caps melting due to the hole in the ozone, are these reports as totally misleading and ignorant of the actual facts as this report was?

I don't begrudge Stan his money. And it would be great if he gave some of it to the Kirby estate. But if he doesn't, that doesn't make him a bad guy. Bob Kane and Will Eisner were artists who were smart enough not to be taken advantage of by the "System". Other artists were not. Stan Lee was good at self promotion. Artists tend to be introverts who would rather spend time alone at their drawing board rather than sucking up to their boss or giving interviews to Sunday supplement mags.

Todd McFarlane is a smart business man and an artist. So fanboys like him, right? Wrong! Fanboys seem to dislike him because of his success as a businessman. Artists just don't seem to be able to win for losing.