Talk:Miracleman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Miracleman was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

I presume Marvelman's existence continued (despite the blatant plagiarism of Captain Marvel) because Fawcett couldn't afford to sue a British comic book producer; after all, they had been forced to cancel their main cash cow (Captain Marvel) in the 1950s after DC sued them. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then it can be entered into the Wikipedia entry for Marvelman. Modemac


Forgot to mention that point. AFAIK, Miller was completely above-board and did his reprints with Fawcett's permission. His supply of Captain Marvel dried up because Fawcett had been forced to stop publishing it. Why DC didn't sue Miller, I don't know, but the Captain Marvel/Superman comparison for the original suit seems a bit iffy to me anyway, and a derivative hero of Captain Marvel would be even iffier. Someone was distributing UK B&W reprints of Superman around then, it might even have been Miller. If so, why sue someone who's paying you royalties? US corporate lawyers may think differently, of course... (and thanks for that afternote, too. That there's a chance, that someday Gaiman might finish it, is good news) -- Malcolm Farmer

Contents

[edit] Name of article

I have moved this article from Marvelman to Miracleman in order to conform with Wikipedia's most common name policy. —Lowellian (talk) 22:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have to be honest... I'm a little offended. This character originated in the UK and so should be titled under its original name. ---- Zestos 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources needed!

If we're going to have this much detail about the ownership dispute (I think it could be condensed a little, but it is pretty infamous in the comics world), we really need some references for this article. This book would probably be a good place to start, but I don't have a copy. ←Hob 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I've tagged this article for cleanup, partially for the reasons you state, Hob, but also because User:Logan1138's (fine) contribution needs copyediting and reorganizing. I hope to return to this article soon. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added some links to provide references (i also found out Gaiman was asked to write a new version of Secret Wars?! ) which should help provide sources. Logan1138 12:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The Man Of Miracles"

Could anyone expand further as to what exactly McFarlane is doing with this in Spawn?Logan1138 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

Some aspects of the article need some fine-tuning. For one thing, it says that when Leach left the strip and was replaced by Alan Davis, Leach's third ownership transferred to Davis. Why is this? Since when does ownership of a property transfer to the person who happens to be working on it? Is this a British thing, or something? Also, Dez Skinn's name is introduced into the article without any mention of who he is or what his relationship is to the character. Even some brief mention or description of him and his place in the situation would be apt.


The rights were transferred to Davis because thats what happened. There was no specific reason other than that. Skinn has his own entry which goes in detail, as does Warrior, but a small description will be added.Logan1138 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


The transferral of rights in this way was not a standard practice by any means; however, it was an arrangement that the various creators working on the title came to between themselves. See also Moore's voluntary transferral of his third to be jointly held between Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham. Actually, on that note, I'm not sure if the article actually mentions that Buckingham actually holds half of Moore's original share - the implication seems to be that Gaiman holds 33.3%, when in fact he only holds 16.7%, the same as Buckingham (however, since they are both generally held to be "singing from the same hymn sheet" with regards to MM, this share is considered to be a jointly-held third rather than two separate sixths).

[edit] what tesseract? (gratuitous link)

The Miracleman project consisted of giving someone a second body; when a telepathic signal was given the two bodies switched place in space and the mind was transferred as well. (This is akin to a tesseract but it's unknown if Alan Moore was aware of the concept at the time.)

No, it's not. There's no relation whatsoever. Yes, having one single, 4-dimensional body, could produce a similar effect, but the comic makes it abundantly clear that's not the case; and even if it was, the body would not be a tesseract, as it's not cubic.

So this comparison is entirely gratuitous, "let's sound cool and smart a bit", complete with an entirely gratuitous link to the tesseract article. Please let's remove it.--LaloMartins 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with pointless asides being plugged into articles. I vote to remove it, as the comic book clearly explains that it is two seperate 3D constructs swapping places like the Captain Marvels of DC or Marvel. The tesseract comment is pointless and incorrect. 140.185.215.122 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Steve

[edit] Failed Good Article Status

I removed this article from the good nominations page because it is not sufficiently referenced. joturner 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow; I just realized I was the one who nominated this article for good article status. So, I suppose this is just a retraction of that nomination; I didn't realize how insufficiently referenced this was. joturner 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was the one who nominated it. I'll see what I can do about the references. Iron Ghost 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can pop some up over the next week or so. The article needs some polishing anyhow.Logan1138 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More plot details?

Would it maybe be a good idea to have a seperate article going into more depth as to the plot of the actual comics, especially as they're out of print? While it's understandable given the book's ligititious legiti troubled history, it does sadly follow the trend of most MM sources in that it barely mentions why anyone would want the rights in the first place... Just a thought :)

As an aside, the comment "by the few who possess a copy of the book" in reference to MM #15 sounds a little... dramatic. While it's hardly common and does fetch a pretty large amount of money, it wasn't, IIRC, avaliable in notably smaller quantities than the rest of the Olympus issues, it's just considered a key issue... Personally, I find the rule of thumb that you can hammer "Miracleman #15" into ebay 95% of the time and find a copy for sale as a good indicator that it's not ludicrously rare. Beyond that, it just seems like a pointless little phrase - why would those who haven't read it acclaim Totleben's artwork anyway, whether 5 or 5 million copies were knocking about? ;)

Tom Prankerd 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If you want to add more plot details feel free (although bare in mind its only supposed to be a summary). Pesonally I think its best to keep everything in the one article rather than have a seperate plot page. I agree with you about that MM #15 sentence.

Iron Ghost 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Cheers, I'll have a look at that... it's probably more a case of balancing, as the Warrior sumarisation goes into a fair bit of depth, and the "Eclipse" one, well, doesn't, despite more happening in the latter =)

Tom Prankerd 11:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Man of miracles.gif

Image:Man of miracles.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hellspawn13.jpg

Image:Hellspawn13.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Miraclemanr23.jpg

Image:Miraclemanr23.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Warriorsummerspecial.jpg

Image:Warriorsummerspecial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kimota

As I remember it, Michael Moran doesn't remember his powerword, he actually reads the word atomic which is reversed by being on the other side of a glass door.
And can we actually have something about MarvelMan, not just a discussion about the courtcase surrounding the magazine, the authors, the legal ownership - characterisation [His Paul Newman look], his enemies, his powers, etc
193.243.227.1 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marvelmanspecial.jpg

Image:Marvelmanspecial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rights timeline

As written, the character-rights ownership seems to be missing some details. Here's how I understand it from reading the article (assuming Dez Skinn really had the rights in the first place):

  1. At the outset, Skinn has 30%, Moore 30%, Leach 30%, and Quality 10%.
  2. Davis comes aboard. The article says "Moore, Skinn and Leach transferred part of their ownership of the character to Davis — with Skinn claiming 10% and Moore, Davis and Leach, 30% each". But this is contradictory; if those were the final percentages, the only way that would have happened was if Skinn gave 20% of his share to Davis, Quality gave all of theirs, and Moore and Leach did nothing. Is this in fact what happened?
  3. The article then says "In 1985 Eclipse Comics bought the rights from Skinn". But Skinn only owned 10% at that time, right? So now we're at 30% for Moore, Davis, and Leach, and 10% for Eclipse.
  4. "Davis... gave his rights to Leach". So now it's 60% Leach, 30% Moore, 10% Eclipse.
  5. "Moore gave his 30% share to... Neil Gaiman... [who] divided them between himself and artist Mark Buckingham". So 60% Leach, 15% Gaiman, 15% Buckingham, and 10% Eclipse.
  6. Eclipse goes bankrupt, and McFarlane gets their properties.

So according to this, even granting McFarlane's claims, he only owns 10% of Marvelman/Miracleman, Gaiman owns 15%, and Gary Leach has 60%. Somehow I doubt this is the case. Can somebody more familiar with this clear up the article?—Chowbok ☠ 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)