hutch (04/21/83)
Destroyer Duck isn't Howard the Duck, and if Marvel wanted to sue, they could probably win a libel case. Destroyer Duck is truly drekulous. Unfortunately, Kirby and Gerber are both extremists. So, for that matter, is Byrne. When an extremist isn't moderated by a couple other folks telling them that what they are doing is a) bullshit or b) overstated or c) clumsy and undeveloped, then the extremist blithely slips into self-parody. Another reason for not buying Destroyer Duck is that Howard the Duck was clearly NOT a creation of Steve Gerber, although Gerber did successfully develop him as a character. If you like Gerber stuff, buy Stewart the Rat, since as an original character, and a non-duck, he is much more enjoyable (even though there are those extremes again). quack quack Hutch
UNKNOWN:fantods (04/27/83)
I don't know about Howard, but now there is a thing called "Destroyer Duck" done by Kirby for one of the new "ground level" companies....
hutch (04/29/83)
OZ, you are still a humbug. I know from where I speak. Howard the Duck was NOT repeat NOT a gerber creation, he was created by the ARTIST for the series, and much of hte plotting and character development was done by the creative TEAM on that comic. See, in the real world, where Gerber doesn't always live (refer to the famous Dakhim the Enchanter episodes for his own corroboration) people work on comics in teams, where one person will greatly modify the work of another, This is why, for instance, Jean Grey was killed: Byrne thought it would be more compelling if Phoenix ate an inhabited planet, and Shooter had a fit about it *much* later. C.C. didn't write it that way. Similarly, Howard was not strictly a Gerber creation, he was the work of a team of creative people who should have at least as much right to him as Gerber does. Marvel simply claims that ANY character which is developed under their aegis (the shield of Athene, bearing the head of the Gorgon) is their property, barring legal arrangements aimed at preventing this. Since Gerber made the strongest characterisations of Howard, I might not mind it if he were to take over the character, but I will not admit that Destroyer Duck is anything more than tripe. So there, >Braaaak< Cordially, Hutch
firby (05/08/83)
Just to set the record straight, or maybe to confuse things further,
Gerber did indeed write the first appearance of Howard, but it seems
that the sketch came from Mayerik (what ever happened to him), right
down to the cigar. So we're back to the age-old comic book problem:
Which takes precedent, the pictures or the words? I'm inclined
to think that Gerber is more responsible, because he created the
character of the Fharacter, if you know what I mean, but that doesn't
mean he has any legal claim. He knew what he was signing!
joanneoz (05/08/83)
I agree that Gerber has no legal claim and that he knew what he was signing. I think that in order for comics of high quality to come out, there has to be a way for writers/creators to have legal claim on a character. This has been proved by the high quality of the comics coming out from PACIFIC COMICS, FIRST COMICS AND (whoopie, cheers) CEREBUS. I am not saying that some comics haven't improved since their beginning because of new writers. A good example of that is DAREDEVIL. Look at the first issues, it was always an in- teresting comic, but it had its best years under Miller, many years after Stan Lee left it. There is definatly a place in the comic world for both types of arrangements, the company owning the characters and keeping the integrity of them intact, and the creator being able to call all the shots, and I find the new trend in comics to be very good for us, the readers. OZ seismo!rlgvax!oz