Re: 2000AD or Starlord?
Posted: 02 Aug 2014, 10:21
Surprised that Marvel didn't whinge about IPC using their name then.
Aiming to become the definitive guide to British comics
https://comicsuk.co.uk/forum/
I know, col. Hopefully plenty of people the world over looking for comics backstory on the central character of the Guardians of the Galaxy film (where've you been??) will stumble on and appreciate the awesome-osity of the eponymous 1978 UK comic!colcool007 wrote:Michael, I don't know what Starlord you mean, but we are discussing the 1978 22 issue run of the UK comic.Michael Anden wrote:2000AD definitely sounds cooler. Speaking of which Starlord I don't supposed I'm in the majority but I get a bad vibe from everything I've seen from the Guardians film apart from the productions values. The cartoon squirrel, the desperate-for-laffs but unfunny self-deprecation; the stock character history profiles. Maybe I was just spoiled by the excellence of Winter Solider. But I'll be hoping my lowered expectations will yield fruit, and of course I'll be seeing all of these shamefully-non-fiscally-Jack Kirby-estate-honouring things anyway.
Then again, it didn't stop Marvel stopping Marvelman even though it was created before Marvel existed as a company (with that name).SID wrote:Surprised that Marvel didn't whinge about IPC using their name then.
Maybe they would have done if Starlord continued.starscape wrote:Then again, it didn't stop Marvel stopping Marvelman even though it was created before Marvel existed as a company (with that name).SID wrote:Surprised that Marvel didn't whinge about IPC using their name then.
The reason Marvel objected to 'Marvelman' appearing in the USA was that he was a superhero with the word marvel in his name, so they thought readers might buy the comic believing it was a Marvel character. (Therefore trading on Marvel's company name, - even though that wasn't the case.) Whether they were right to object or not is another matter of course.SID wrote:Maybe they would have done if Starlord continued.starscape wrote:Then again, it didn't stop Marvel stopping Marvelman even though it was created before Marvel existed as a company (with that name).SID wrote:Surprised that Marvel didn't whinge about IPC using their name then.
Marvel's Star Lord was a fairly obscure character back then. I doubt anybody would even have noticed.SID wrote:Surprised that Marvel didn't whinge about IPC using their name then.
Actually, Marvel objected when Dez published a Marvelman Special here in the UK, long before any prospective US release. They basically objected to the name Marvelman appearing prominently on a cover, anywhere.Lew Stringer wrote:The reason Marvel objected to 'Marvelman' appearing in the USA was that he was a superhero with the word marvel in his name, so they thought readers might buy the comic believing it was a Marvel character. (Therefore trading on Marvel's company name, - even though that wasn't the case.) Whether they were right to object or not is another matter of course.SID wrote:Maybe they would have done if Starlord continued.starscape wrote: Then again, it didn't stop Marvel stopping Marvelman even though it was created before Marvel existed as a company (with that name).
Bear in mind they only objected when Marvelman was about to be reprinted as an American comic, not to the stories in UK comic Warrior. So, if IPC had tried to publish a Starlord comic in America I'm sure Marvel would have had something to say about it.
No, you're remembering right.starscape wrote:I remember Warrior being banned from publishing Marvelman with Dez reprinting the letter from Marvel. So my thoughts are it was banned (wrongly of course) for the UK market. Maybe Warrior had sold it on to be reprinted in the US but I stand to be corrected on that point.
I'll have to check through my issues of Warrior, but it didn't stop Dez from running the Marvelman strip did it?tony ingram wrote:No, you're remembering right.starscape wrote:I remember Warrior being banned from publishing Marvelman with Dez reprinting the letter from Marvel. So my thoughts are it was banned (wrongly of course) for the UK market. Maybe Warrior had sold it on to be reprinted in the US but I stand to be corrected on that point.
Well, Marvelman still appeared in about the first 20 issues of Warrior. I think there was more to its sudden departure than that. It was also due to arguments over payment if I recall conversations at the time correctly. Also, I don't think Dez was keen on running a graphic birth scene, which caused more friction between him and Alan.starscape wrote:It did. Warrior stopped publishing MM and printed the letter as the reason. Letters pages were full of it.
I don't think Alan was being over sensitive.starscape wrote:Dez being not entirely transparent?
Alan being over sensitive?
I find that very difficult to believe
Whether that last is true or not, Marvel's threats really were why Warrior stopped running MM, I believe. The letter arrived, the strip stopped, Dez ran the letter, everyone was furious. Marvel jumped in as soon as the MM Special saw print.Lew Stringer wrote:Well, Marvelman still appeared in about the first 20 issues of Warrior. I think there was more to its sudden departure than that. It was also due to arguments over payment if I recall conversations at the time correctly. Also, I don't think Dez was keen on running a graphic birth scene, which caused more friction between him and Alan.starscape wrote:It did. Warrior stopped publishing MM and printed the letter as the reason. Letters pages were full of it.