FACT!: The Avengers has just topped the box office charts for the third week in a row. It has made over $1 billion worldwide and almost half that ($457 million) in the U.S. alone. It currently stands as the fourth highest grossing film of all-time, and has a shot of overtaking Avatar for the top spot.

FACT!: Jack Kirby had a hand in creating many of the characters and concepts in the film–Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Loki, Hulk, the Tesseract/Cosmic Cube, Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D., and The Avengers as a team.

FACT!: Many people who have seen The Avengers have no idea who Jack Kirby is, let alone how much he contributed to the original comics the film was based on.

These three facts have come together to shed new light on an old and very polarizing issue in the world of comics–Marvel Comics’ history of poor treatment of Jack Kirby. Longtime Kirby supporters are using the new found exposure Kirby’s co-creations are getting on the silver screen to press once again that their idol gets the respect that he deserves. Comic creators such as Steve Bissette and James Sturm have advocating boycotts of Marvel products. Journalist David Brothers has wrote eloquently about his decision to give up on Marvel over this matter (and DC for their treatment of Alan Moore as well). Fans have started a petition to try and convince Marvel to give Kirby the credit and royalties they think he deserves. And comic creator Roger Langridge has vowed never to work for Marvel again.

Does Kirby deserve more respect? In the world of comic books, no, only because he already has respect in droves.  He was given the title “King” for a reason. Outside of the world of comics is a different story, because many casual fans might not know the depth of the contributions Kirby has made to Marvel Comics.

So, what did Jack Kirby do for Marvel? Well, he defined its look. He would provide up to 130 pages of artwork a month during the early years of Marvel, artwork that would appear in around 80% of the titles Marvel published at the time. His art style became the Marvel house are style, as Kirby was called on to train new artists joining the company, such as John Buscema, how to draw as dynamically as him.

And his look was diametrically different than anything else on comic book stands. Even though by then he was a 20-year veteran in the industry, his work on the Marvel books were fresh and original. Unlike DC’s house style where the characters looked porcelain and static, Kirby’s figures almost leaped off the page. His characters had character.

And the amount of intellectual property he a hand in creating is legendary.  However, how big a hand he had in their creation is a contentious point in this controversy.

Jack Kirby and Stan Lee (with George Perez and Roy Thomas) in a fictionalized version of their working relationship from Fantastic Four #176

Stan Lee is listed as a writer/editor on all those early Marvel books Kirby worked on. As such, when Marvel Comics became a media sensation in the 60s and 70s, they came to Stan Lee as the creative force behind the books. They looked no farther than the credits box and ran with the idea that Stan Lee was the auteur behind the comics and Jack Kirby was some guy hired to draw Lee’s genius words.

A bitter Kirby later in his life, after decades living in Lee’s shadow, would continually diminish Lee’s role in the partnership, including a notorious 1990 interview with the Comics Journal where Kirby took complete credit for Marvel’s output during that era. “Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything!” Kirby said in that interview. ”I’ve never seen Stan Lee write anything. I used to write the stories just like I always did.”

While there are many that believe that Kirby was the sole creative influence behind the Marvel era of books, others believe a shared collaboration was closer to the truth. Lee has said in that he had a unique working relationship with Kirby in the sense that he didn’t have to write a full synopsis  of the plot for Kirby. All he had to do was call him on the phone, speak briefly about what he wanted–a sentence or a paragraph at most–and Kirby would run with it. Lee would come in later, add dialogue, and a masterpiece was born.

This is the version of the partnership that I subscribe to. It might not have been a 50/50 partnership between the two. It might have been 20% Lee/80% Kirby, with the scale sliding from issue to issue, story arc to story arc. But I believe it definitely wasn’t 100% Kirby or 100% Lee. That’s just not how the world of comic books usually work.

Cartoon taken from the blog of the Kirby Museum (http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/)

But Lee has often times become the focus of rage from Kirby supporters, a practice that becomes more and more unctuous as the years go by. Lee is an easy target, mainly due to genetics–first in the fact that he was the cousin of Marvel’s original publisher Martin Goodman, therefore allowing him an entry into the company and a meteoric rise to Editor-in-Chief during the 40s, second due to him outliving Kirby, meaning he is allowed to reap in the success of the partnership with cameos and media interviews and such. Lee has become the ipso facto face of Marvel Comics. If you are one that believes Kirby did everything and Lee contributed nothing, this would incense you. And you might feel justified in venting your animosity in Lee’s direction.

But Lee wasn’t the one at Marvel who promised Kirby (and Amazing Spider-Man artist Steve Ditko) that he would get a percentage of merchandise then never follow through. That was Martin Goodman. It wasn’t Lee that threatened to slash Kirby’s pay rate when he was doing the lion’s share of the work at Marvel. That was Goodman too. And Stan was in Hollywood by the time Marvel held Kirby’s artwork hostage in the late 1970′s to mid 1980s.

But even if you think Stan Lee willingly and maliciously lied about his involvement in the creation of the Marvel Universe just to keep Jack Kirby down, there has to be some point when the noble quest to gain a sense of justice for Jack by calling out your idol’s enemy turns into you bullying a frail 89-year-old man. Take for instance this snippet from an interview of Lee by Erik Larnick of Moviefone during a press junket for a documentary on Lee called With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story:

Fans of Jack Kirby are concerned that his name appears nowhere on the credits of “The Avengers.”  What’s your take on their concern? I don’t know how to answer that because in what way would his name appear?

His name isn’t mentioned anywhere in the film production as a co-creator. Well it’s mentioned in every comic book; it says “By Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.”

But it doesn’t appear for the film itself; and his fans feel he should get that recognition, with the movie exposing his work to a whole new audience.  I know, but you’re talking to the wrong guy because I have nothing to do with the credits on the movies. I’m credited as one of the executive producers because that’s in my contract. But Jack was not an executive producer. So I don’t know what he’d be credited as. Again I know nothing about that, I have nothing to do with the movie’s credits. You’d have to talk to whoever is the producer of the movie. Is there anything you want to ask me about the documentary because I thought that’s what I was supposed to be talking about.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby back in 1975, along with comic book legends Gil Kane, Jim Steranko, Wil Eisner and Jerry Siegel.

This exchange compelled Heidi MacDonald over at The Beat, a journalist I admire and respect, to ask “Has the fan press suddenly GROWN a pair? Or have they just figured out that controversy sells?” I’d say the later. While it’s arguable that Moviefone, an offshoot of AOL, can be considered “fan press,” asking these questions is not an act of bravery, it’s an act of chicanery. This is not rightfully calling Lee on the carpet for supposed mistreatment of Kirby. This is ambushing an octogenarian with something specific he has no control over, and passing off his reply as him evading the question. And not to right any sort of wrongs either, but to gain site hits (which is why the snippet was released a week  before the actual article). The real kicker is that Kirby’s name is in the credits for The Avengers, something Larnick would have found out if he asked a studio flack or someone with more more than a ceremonial connection to the film.

If you are looking for an article that asks the questions Larnick was trying to ask, but does it in a more journalistic way–with a juicer pull quote–I recommend Alex Pappademas’ interview, most likely taken on the same press junket, over at Grantland.

Once again, I’m not saying that Jack Kirby deserves less credit than Stan Lee or vice versa. I’m saying that attacking the person the general public sees as “that cute old man with the funny cameos”  is no way to gain the mainstream respect Jack Kirby should rightfully have. If you are looking for fairness, you have to be fair first.

Death isn’t always the impediment that some people think it to be, at least in the movies. And that’s a good thing for Sigourney Weaver.

While doing the publicity rounds for her latest film, Abduction, Weaver discussed the possibility of her returning for the second and third film Avatar film that director James Cameron is planning, despite her character having died in the first film.

Speaking with Collider, Weaver stated that she would definitely be back for the sequels -

We’re going to do two more, back-to-back… You saw something happen to me, but as [Cameron] says, “In science fiction, no one ever dies.” But, we’ll talk another time about that.

Personally, I don’t think that there was ever going to be any question about Weaver’s return to Avatar‘s planet Pandora given the circumstances surrounding her character’s “demise.” I can certainly

Avatar 2 and 3 should be out somewhere between 2013 and 2015.

The Roommate (Sony/Screen Gems, 2,534 Theaters, 93 Minutes, Rated PG-13): So, who wants to start the Single White Female references? Anyone? Show of hands!

Yes, the roommate that gets a little to close has been done before, to creepy perfection with Bridget Fonda and Jennifer Jason Leigh. So, that makes this one pretty much worthless, right?

Not so fast. Part of the college experience that carries with students long after you leave is who you room with. The partnerships are usually determined by the luck of the draw, with pairings determined by the flimsiest of questionnaires. If you’re lucky, you’ll have a friend for life. If not, you’ll have four years of hell.

This film takes that last quality to its creepy extreme. So, the premise that worked so well all those many years ago could do well with this new variable added. Or it could be a schlock fest.

Sanctum (Universal, 2,789 Theaters, 109 Minutes, Rated R): You hear James Cameron’s name associated with this film quite a lot. It’s in every ad, on the posters, everywhere.

Now, those Cameron fans who know that he can take up to decade in between films, so having a new film directed by him so soon after Avatar is quite unusual.

Thing is, Cameron is only producing this film. They aren’t really open with that in the ads. I wonder if anybody will be fooled by this tactic and come into this film expecting Avatar 2.

Anyway, this is story about a group of spelunkers who get trapped in a cave. They need to work together in order to get out of there alive.

With it being the biggest money making film of all time, not adjusting the returns of Gone With The Wind for 71 years of inflation, it was almost inevitable that there was going to be a sequel to Avatar. And now James Cameron and studio Twentieth Century Fox have come to an agreement that will see the director making his next two films Avatar sequels.

Cameron had this to say in a press release announcing the deal -

It is a rare and remarkable opportunity when a filmmaker gets to build a fantasy world, and watch it grow, with the resources and partnership of a global media company.  AVATAR was conceived as an epic work of fantasy – a world that audiences could visit, across all media platforms, and this moment marks the launch of the next phase of that world.  With two new films on the drawing boards, my company and I are embarking on an epic journey with our partners at Twentieth Century Fox.  Our goal is to meet and exceed the global audience’s expectations for the richness of AVATAR’s visual world and the power of the storytelling.  In the second and third films, which will be self contained stories that also fulfill a greater story arc, we will not back off the throttle of AVATAR’s visual and emotional horsepower, and will continue to explore its themes and characters, which touched the hearts of audiences in all cultures around the world.  I’m looking forward to returning to Pandora, a world where our imaginations can run wild.

The current plan is for Cameron to start scripting the two films in the new year and having cameras rolling by the end of 2011. Of course, since there is a certain amount of post-production work required for these films, we won’t get to see them in our local cineplexes until December 2014 and 2015.

While I’ll admit that I am excited to see new wonders Cameron has cooked up for the world of Pandora, I’m hoping that there he takes a bit more time to flesh out the characters who will be exploring this world than he did with the first film.

We know that James Cameron isn’t really proud of his debut work as a film director, 1981′s Piranha II. True, he was fired mid-way through production, so you can be sympathetic to his feelings about the whole experience. However, his hatred for what happened  has now spilled out towards the recent 3D remake. In an interview that appeared this week in Vanity Fare, Cameron went so far as to say -

I tend almost never to throw other films under the bus, but that is exactly an example of what we should not be doing in 3-D. Because it just cheapens the medium and reminds you of the bad 3-D horror films from the 70s and 80s, like Friday the 13th 3-D.

I think it’s interesting to note that Cameron doesn’t say that he saw the movie, so trashing Piranha 3D without a caveat either way seems to be a rather jerk move.

It looks like Piranha 3D producer Mark Canton thought the same thing and earlier today released the following statement/open letter to Cameron -

As a producer in the entertainment industry, Jim Cameron’s comments on VanityFair.com are very disappointing to me and the team that made Piranha 3D.  Mr. Cameron, who singles himself out to be a visionary of movie-making, seems to have a small vision regarding any motion pictures that are not his own.  It is amazing that in the movie-making process – which is certainly a team sport – that Cameron consistently celebrates himself out as though he is a team of one.  His comments are ridiculous, self-serving and insulting to those of us who are not caught up in serving his ego and his rhetoric.

Jim, are you kidding or what? First of all, let’s start by you accepting the fact that you were the original director of PIRANHA 2 and you were fired.  Shame on you for thinking that genre movies and the real maestros like Roger Corman and his collaborators are any less auteur or impactful in the history of cinema than you. Martin Scorcese made Boxcar Bertha at the beginning of his career.  And Francis Ford Coppola made Dimentia 13 back in 1963.  And those are just a few examples of the  talented and successful filmmakers whose roots are in genre films.  Who are you to impugn any genre film or its creators?

Having been deeply involved, as either an executive or as a producer, on Tim Burton’s original BATMAN and the first MEN IN BLACK, as well as 300, and now IMMORTALS, one of the things that has been consistent about all  of the filmmakers involved in these landscape-changing global films is that, in each and every case, all of the directors were humbled by their predecessors, their colleagues and by their awareness of the great history of film that came before them.  The enjoyment and the immersion of an audience in a movie theatre, as they had and will have with the above-mentioned films, and as audiences are experiencing with PIRNAHA 3D now, comes from the originality and the vision of the filmmaker, and not just from the creation of the technology.  You as much as anyone certainly knows that there are many pieces to the puzzle. Going to the movies still remains, arguably, amongst the best communal experiences that human beings can share.

My sense is that Mr. Cameron has never seen PIRANHA 3D…certainly not in a movie theatre with a real audience.  Jim, we invite you to take that opportunity and experience the movie in a theatre full of fans - fans for whom this movie was always intended to entertain.

Does Mr. Cameron have no idea of the painstaking efforts made by the talented young filmmaker Alex Aja and his team of collaborators?  Clearly, and this one is a good bet, he has no clue as to how great and how much of a fun-filled experience the audiences who have seen the film in 3D have enjoyed.  Those of us who have tried to stay in touch with the common movie audiences – the ones who really matter, the ones who actually still go to the theatre, put on the glasses, and eat the popcorn – take joy and pride in the fact that movies of all kinds, including PIRANHA 3D, have a place in filmmaking history – past, present and future. 3D unto itself is not a genre Jim, it is a tool that gives audiences an enhanced experience as they experience all kinds of movies.  I believe  Mr. Cameron did not see PIRANHA 3D either with any real audience or not at all. On opening weekend, I was in a Los Angeles theatre with a number of today’s great film makers including  JJ Abrams, who actually had nothing short of the fabulous, fun 3D experience that the movie provides. I am fortunate enough to have worked on, and continue to work on, evolutionary movies in all formats from just simple good story telling, which still matters most of all, to CG movies to tent-pole size 3D movies, and genre 3D movies like PIRANHA 3D.

What it comes down to, Jim, is –  that like most things in life – size doesn’t really matter.  Not everyone has the advantage of having endless amounts of money to play in their sandbox and to take ten years using other people’s money to make and market a film….like you do. Why can’t you just count your blessings?  Why do you have to drop Marty Scorsese’s or Tim Burton’s names, both gentlemen who I have personally worked with, and who have enjoyed great joy and success with movies of all genres and sizes well before the advent of modern 3D?  Then as now, they were like kids in a candy store recognizing, far beyond your imagination, the possibilities of storytelling and originality.

For the record, before you just totally dismiss PIRANHA 3D and all, in your opinion, worthless genre movies that actually undoubtedly gave you the ability to start your career, you should know that PIRANHA 3D had an 82% “fresh” (positive) ratting on Rotten Tomatoes on opening day - a web site that all the studios, filmmakers and the public use as a barometer of what makes a quality film.

We know that PIRANHA 3D has not achieved a boxoffice that is on the level of many of Mr. Cameron’s successes.  To date, PIRANHA 3D has earned over $30 million around the globe with #1 openings in several countries.  And, as the “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes indicates, critics and many, many others have embraced and celebrated PIRANHA 3D for the fun and entertaining – and even smart – movie-going experience that it is.

Let’s just keep this in mind Jim….you did not invent 3D. You were fortunate that others inspired you to take it further. The simple truth is that I had nothing but good things to say about AVATAR and my own experience since I actually saw it and didn’t damn someone else’s talent publicly in order to disassociate myself from my origins in the business from which we are all very fortunate. To be honest, I found the 3D in AVATAR to be inconsistent and while ground breaking in many respects, sometimes I thought it overwhelmed the storytelling.  Technology aside, I wish AVATAR had been more original in its storytelling.

We have to inspire, teach and mentor this next generation of filmmakers. It is garbage to suggest that any film or any filmmaker who cannot afford to work to your standards should be dissuaded from following his or her craft by not making 3D movies or not making movies like DISTRICT 9, for example, which probably cost the amount of AVATAR’s craft services budget, but totally rocked it in the movie theatre and in the marketplace. In that case, it was not a 3D movie.  But had it been, it certainly would not have been any less original or impactful. The enormous worldwide success of AVATAR has been good in all respects for you, your financiers, your distributors and the industry, as well as for the movie going public. Jim, there is a difference between Maestro which is a word that garners respect, and Dictator or Critic which are words better left for others who are not in our mutual boat or on our team. You are one of the best, it is reasonable to think that you should dig deeper and behave like it.  Young directors should be inspired by you, not publicly castigated by your mean-spirited and flawed analysis.

While we are all awed by your talents and your box office successes – and I compliment you on all of them – why don’t you rethink how you address films with which you are not involved?  You should be taking the high road that is being travelled by so many of your peers, and pulling with them to ensure that we, as an industry, will have a continuum of talented filmmakers that will deliver a myriad of motion pictures both big and small, with 3D or any other technologies yet to come that will entertain audiences throughout the world. That is the challenge that we face. That is the future that we should deliver.

It’s a shame that Cameron had to badmouth Piranha in this way. Along with the dance movie Step Up 3D, it is one of the only live action films presented in 3D that was actually shot for the format since Avatar‘s release. All the rest of the live action films have been post-production jobs that quite frankly looked pretty bad. Cameron should be applauding and encouraging any filmmaker shooting in 3D, not crapping on them.

1. The Last Exorcism (Lionsgate, 2,874 Theaters, 87 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Exorcisms are pretty good horror film fodder. You have an innocent possessed by an evil demon. You have a heroic priest or priests fighting to save her soul. You have a battle that they could conceivably not win. You really only have to do two things: stay as far away from the plot of The Exorcist as you possibly can and look at the procedure from a different angle.

This film appears to take a cue from police films (with a little bit taken from The Blair Witch Project as well). A burnt-out priest decides to do one final exorcism before he retires. He also allows a documentary crew follow him for this last time. Unfortunately, it procedure doesn’t go all that smooth.

Of course, the film is PG-13, which is one strike against any horror film, in my opinion. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that its going to be bad.

2. Takers (Sony/Screen Gems, 2,206 Theaters, 107 Minutes, Rated PG-13): You can say one thing for this cast, it certainly is eclectic. You have troubled hip-hop stars (Chris Brown, T.I.), Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), and that guy from Fast and Furious plus that guy from The Wire (Paul Walker, Idris Elba). And Matt Dillon, who is always good, even in bad movies.

But what kind of movie will this be? It deals with a group of very successful bank robbers who have come across a bit of dissension in their ranks. Apparently, it revolves around T.I.’s character and his feeling neglected while being in prison. This crack in the team’s unity could be just the thing to allow the cops to bring the crew to justice.

This film could be a fun caper film, or it could be kind of bad. There are a lot of unproven actors in the cast.

3. Avatar: Special Edition (Fox, 811 Theaters, 160 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Welcome to blatant cash-grab theater! James Cameron is second only to George Lucas when it comes to putting out multiple versions of the same movies.

This film features nine whole minutes that were not in the original release last year. Yes, nine whole minutes. They weren’t in the DVD release from back in April, but they probably will be in the new, 3-D DVD/Blu-Ray that is set to come out later this year, which will probably have even more footage not seen in the original version.

What? Didn’t the first Avatar make enough money the first time around? I mean, you can’t deny the pull of the film–it is the highest grossing film of all time. That means that hardcore Avatards will be lining up to see this film. But really, haven’t you made them spend enough? Two DVD/Blu-Ray release is almost the industry standard. Two theatrical releases (excepting the “let’s remind the Oscar voters reissuing that is quite common) is just being greedy.

James Cameron’s Avatar will be making a limited, 3D-only return engagement to theaters on August 27, presumably because they just didn’t make enough money the first time around.

The film will actually be eight minutes longer, with Cameron inserting previously cut scenes back in. According to the press release from 20th Century Fox, the new material will include “new creatures and action scenes.” Unfortunately, there is no word as to whether any new story or character moments will be added as well.

Presumably this extended cut will also be featured in the Avatar Ultimate Edition DVD/Blu-ray release scheduled for November.

1. The Last Airbender (Paramount, 3,169 Theaters, 103 Minutes, Rated PG): I don’t understand the logic for this release date. Films are usually released on Fridays and occasionally on Wednesday, and every once in a great while on Thursdays. We already have a film movie being released on Wednesday, the latest Twilight. Instead of going up against that film on Wednesday, or getting an extra day separation for a Friday release, this film is getting a Thursday release. Do they really thing 24 hours is enough time for it to escape Twilight: Eclipse’s shadow? Do they think opening it a day earlier would help it’s box office tally all that much? I doubt either would be true. 

Anyway, this is the live action adaptation of the popular Amerianime cartoon, Avatar: The Last Airbender (They had to change the title due to a modestly grossing, art-house film James Cameron put out last year). It is directed by M. Night Shyamalan, which seems like an odd choice.

Shyamalan is known for his own quirky mysteries with surprise twists at the end, And while Unbreakable was basically a comic book film without a comic book, he isn’t the first director you’d think of as a go-to guy for a genre adaptation.

The plot involves an immensely powerful boy who is called upon to stop a war amongst several elemental kingdoms.

Cameron loves his oceans. He has already set two of his major films and shot one documentary on top of and underneath the water. And now he’s going to make it a third film when his sequel to Avatar moves forward.

The director told the Los Angeles Times that the follow up to his runaway blockbuster would move out of the rain forests of the alien world of Pandora and explore some of the other environments that he developed for Avatar‘s backstory.

We created a broad canvas for the environment of film. That’s not just on Pandora, but throughout the Alpha Centauri AB system. And we expand out across that system and incorporate more into the story – not necessarily in the second film, but more toward a third film. I’ve already announced this, so I might as well say it: Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment – a different setting within Pandora. And I’m going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won’t be a rain forest. I’m not saying we won’t see what we’ve already seen; we’ll see more of that as well.

While I have some problems with the simplicity of the story he told and the ironic lack of character depth in his 3D movie, I am looking forward to an Avatar sequel. The world that Cameron created is perhaps one of the most fully realized one in science-fiction cinema and I am interested in seeing more of it. Hopefully, Cameron will be able to create a story that will make the journey worthwhile.

1. Clash Of The Titans (Warner Brothers, 3,777 Theaters, 118 Minutes, rated PG-13): The original Clash of the Titans, released in 1981, is regarded as a camp classic. This is mostly due to a cast that ran the gamut from Sir Laurence Olivier to Harry Hamlin, from Maggie Smith to Burgess Meredith and also for being the last film to feature Ray Harryhausen’s classic stop motion animation.

But was it ever considered a great movie? Or even one that cried out for a remake? Or even financial seemed like a good idea to remake?

This version does have some things going for it. It has a fresh from Avatar Sam Worthington in it, and Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as well. But the tone seems to be less deliberately campy than the original and Harryhausen, who retired after the original, has been replaced by a computer. Those facts might outweigh the good in this case.

2. Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married Too (Lionsgate, 2,155 Theaters, 121 Minutes, Rated PG-13): I had one bright hope when it came to Tyler Perry. It was that eventually, he would run out of stage plays of his to adapt into film and then we’d never see or hear from him again.

But then he decided to make sequels to the films he already adapted from his plays! This could go on forever! We may never be rid of him.

Now, I am nowhere near Perry’s target audience, but from what I’ve seen, his rampant popularity astounds me. To be honest, he’s running from behind with me by just his name being on everything and him taking the showiest part for himself–in drag no less. But I just don’t get the success.

But he does have success and all his films do well at the box office. How well will he do against the Kraken and the Miley/Nicholas Sparks combo is another question entirely. He’s got his box office work cut out for him.