|
Post by Chris on Jun 2, 2023 2:11:41 GMT -5
From 1976 to 1978, he had his own series! It lasted only 15 issues and was swallowed up by the DC Implosion. Val traveled to 20th-century New York City and had various adventures. I don’t know very much about the series. I only have one issue, #15, and I only have that one because of the Kamandi cross-over. The series wasn't cancelled by the DC Implosion. In fact, it ended several months before the other Implosion-related fatalities were incurred. True, #15 does not conclude the series, but it does get a proper (more or less, in a "tie up all the loose ends in one shot" kind of way) conclusion in Kamandi #58. And if you remember the ending of #15, it was pretty wild, and just gets weirder in the Kamandi issue. I would totally pay to see that movie. Shaxper should totally review the Karate Kid series, since he is such a huge fan of writer Bob Rozakis.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 2, 2023 2:15:10 GMT -5
The Karate Kid comic book series was the reason why the Ralph Macchio film had that notation, in the end credits, that The Karate Kid was trademark DC Comics. The comic book would have been more interesting with the Cobra Kai in it. The legal issues didn't end even after the movie was released, according to Jim Shooter. From here - In 1995, I think, I was asked to testify by Columbia Pictures in Federal Court. Someone was suing them over the Karate Kid movies, claiming that the idea was his, that, in fact, the story was based on his own experiences and that he created the name. You’ll notice if you look closely, that at the end of each KK movie there is a TM and Copyright notice identifying “Karate Kid” as the property of DC Comics, used by Columbia under license. The Plaintiff asserted that he had created the name “Karate Kid” in 1968. I testified that I had created it, work-for-hire, for DC Comics in 1965, and brought a copy of the first issue of Adventure Comics in which Karate Kid had appeared, published in 1966, which was entered into evidence. The judge told the jury to ignore my testimony as “hearsay.” He said that for all he knew, I could have printed up that comic book in my basement the night before. I argued that the Statement of Ownership, which, coincidentally appeared in that issue, a Federal document (back then) was proof of authenticity—and that half a million copies had been sold, which with pass-along readership and subsequent appearances meant, undeniably, that the criteria for national exposure had been met. DC’s lawyers submitted case law demonstrating that printed magazines (the Judge didn’t consider a comic book a “magazine”) were acceptable as evidence. Anyway…. Columbia prevailed. Their lawyers told me I was the best witness they’d ever had since Clint Eastwood.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jun 2, 2023 3:53:57 GMT -5
The Karate Kid comic book series was the reason why the Ralph Macchio film had that notation, in the end credits, that The Karate Kid was trademark DC Comics. The comic book would have been more interesting with the Cobra Kai in it. The legal issues didn't end even after the movie was released, according to Jim Shooter. From here - In 1995, I think, I was asked to testify by Columbia Pictures in Federal Court. Someone was suing them over the Karate Kid movies, claiming that the idea was his, that, in fact, the story was based on his own experiences and that he created the name. You’ll notice if you look closely, that at the end of each KK movie there is a TM and Copyright notice identifying “Karate Kid” as the property of DC Comics, used by Columbia under license. The Plaintiff asserted that he had created the name “Karate Kid” in 1968. I testified that I had created it, work-for-hire, for DC Comics in 1965, and brought a copy of the first issue of Adventure Comics in which Karate Kid had appeared, published in 1966, which was entered into evidence. The judge told the jury to ignore my testimony as “hearsay.” He said that for all he knew, I could have printed up that comic book in my basement the night before. I argued that the Statement of Ownership, which, coincidentally appeared in that issue, a Federal document (back then) was proof of authenticity—and that half a million copies had been sold, which with pass-along readership and subsequent appearances meant, undeniably, that the criteria for national exposure had been met. DC’s lawyers submitted case law demonstrating that printed magazines (the Judge didn’t consider a comic book a “magazine”) were acceptable as evidence. Anyway…. Columbia prevailed. Their lawyers told me I was the best witness they’d ever had since Clint Eastwood. He actually argued with the judge while on the witness stand..? Wow! Wouldn't it be contempt of the court or whatever? (Note: everything I know about the American legal system comes from Law and Order).
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jun 2, 2023 5:00:28 GMT -5
The legal issues didn't end even after the movie was released, according to Jim Shooter. From here - In 1995, I think, I was asked to testify by Columbia Pictures in Federal Court. Someone was suing them over the Karate Kid movies, claiming that the idea was his, that, in fact, the story was based on his own experiences and that he created the name. You’ll notice if you look closely, that at the end of each KK movie there is a TM and Copyright notice identifying “Karate Kid” as the property of DC Comics, used by Columbia under license. The Plaintiff asserted that he had created the name “Karate Kid” in 1968. I testified that I had created it, work-for-hire, for DC Comics in 1965, and brought a copy of the first issue of Adventure Comics in which Karate Kid had appeared, published in 1966, which was entered into evidence. The judge told the jury to ignore my testimony as “hearsay.” He said that for all he knew, I could have printed up that comic book in my basement the night before. I argued that the Statement of Ownership, which, coincidentally appeared in that issue, a Federal document (back then) was proof of authenticity—and that half a million copies had been sold, which with pass-along readership and subsequent appearances meant, undeniably, that the criteria for national exposure had been met. DC’s lawyers submitted case law demonstrating that printed magazines (the Judge didn’t consider a comic book a “magazine”) were acceptable as evidence. Anyway…. Columbia prevailed. Their lawyers told me I was the best witness they’d ever had since Clint Eastwood. He actually argued with the judge while on the witness stand..? Wow! Wouldn't it be contempt of the court or whatever? (Note: everything I know about the American legal system comes from Law and Order). Since that bit about the Columbia/Karate Kid case is just a brief aside in a much longer post about something I else, I think Shooter just provided a summarized account of what happened to get his point across. Although I'm no expert on US court proceedings, I think it's more likely that after the judge made that jury instruction the attorney probably asked Shooter a few focused questions to which he responded with those points that contradicted the judge's claim. What I'm actually finding a bit unusual is that the judge would even do something like that, since it seems like he's putting his foot on the scale, i.e., contesting the validity of that comic book as evidence should be a matter left to the opposing counsel, not the judge. But like I said, I'm no expert on this kind of stuff, and also like I said, this is just a brief aside in a longer blog post, and Shooter was writing it about a decade and half afterward, so there's some question as to how accurately he's recounting everything.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 2, 2023 6:46:53 GMT -5
Tom Peyer credits Rachel Pollack for coming up with Girl, the Boy Wonder.
And this is from....?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jun 2, 2023 7:04:50 GMT -5
He actually argued with the judge while on the witness stand..? Wow! Wouldn't it be contempt of the court or whatever? (Note: everything I know about the American legal system comes from Law and Order). Since that bit about the Columbia/Karate Kid case is just a brief aside in a much longer post about something I else, I think Shooter just provided a summarized account of what happened to get his point across. Although I'm no expert on US court proceedings, I think it's more likely that after the judge made that jury instruction the attorney probably asked Shooter a few focused questions to which he responded with those points that contradicted the judge's claim. What I'm actually finding a bit unusual is that the judge would even do something like that, since it seems like he's putting his foot on the scale, i.e., contesting the validity of that comic book as evidence should be a matter left to the opposing counsel, not the judge. But like I said, I'm no expert on this kind of stuff, and also like I said, this is just a brief aside in a longer blog post, and Shooter was writing it about a decade and half afterward, so there's some question as to how accurately he's recounting everything.
I hope he's misremembering, because when you put it like that, every testimony could be a "hearsay". - "I'm Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft. To prove that, here the relative legal papers, magazines articles and photos of the time" - "Please ignore his testimony as hearsay. For all that I know, he could have printed up all this material the past night in his basement"
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 2, 2023 8:19:53 GMT -5
The Karate Kid comic book series was the reason why the Ralph Macchio film had that notation, in the end credits, that The Karate Kid was trademark DC Comics. The comic book would have been more interesting with the Cobra Kai in it. The legal issues didn't end even after the movie was released, according to Jim Shooter. From here - In 1995, I think, I was asked to testify by Columbia Pictures in Federal Court. Someone was suing them over the Karate Kid movies, claiming that the idea was his, that, in fact, the story was based on his own experiences and that he created the name. You’ll notice if you look closely, that at the end of each KK movie there is a TM and Copyright notice identifying “Karate Kid” as the property of DC Comics, used by Columbia under license. The Plaintiff asserted that he had created the name “Karate Kid” in 1968. I testified that I had created it, work-for-hire, for DC Comics in 1965, and brought a copy of the first issue of Adventure Comics in which Karate Kid had appeared, published in 1966, which was entered into evidence. The judge told the jury to ignore my testimony as “hearsay.” He said that for all he knew, I could have printed up that comic book in my basement the night before. I argued that the Statement of Ownership, which, coincidentally appeared in that issue, a Federal document (back then) was proof of authenticity—and that half a million copies had been sold, which with pass-along readership and subsequent appearances meant, undeniably, that the criteria for national exposure had been met. DC’s lawyers submitted case law demonstrating that printed magazines (the Judge didn’t consider a comic book a “magazine”) were acceptable as evidence. Anyway…. Columbia prevailed. Their lawyers told me I was the best witness they’d ever had since Clint Eastwood. The judge said no such thing as that testimony is clearly not hearsay. Shooter is a narcissist of Trumpian proportions.
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Jun 2, 2023 9:28:59 GMT -5
Tom Peyer credits Rachel Pollack for coming up with Girl, the Boy Wonder.
And this is from....? That's from L.E.G.I.O.N. Annual #5, which included a section of short gags called "Elseworlds Rejects".
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 2, 2023 9:38:20 GMT -5
He actually argued with the judge while on the witness stand..? Wow! Wouldn't it be contempt of the court or whatever? (Note: everything I know about the American legal system comes from Law and Order). Since that bit about the Columbia/Karate Kid case is just a brief aside in a much longer post about something I else, I think Shooter just provided a summarized account of what happened to get his point across. Although I'm no expert on US court proceedings, I think it's more likely that after the judge made that jury instruction the attorney probably asked Shooter a few focused questions to which he responded with those points that contradicted the judge's claim. What I'm actually finding a bit unusual is that the judge would even do something like that, since it seems like he's putting his foot on the scale, i.e., contesting the validity of that comic book as evidence should be a matter left to the opposing counsel, not the judge. But like I said, I'm no expert on this kind of stuff, and also like I said, this is just a brief aside in a longer blog post, and Shooter was writing it about a decade and half afterward, so there's some question as to how accurately he's recounting everything.
I don't believe for a second the judge did what Shooter said that he did. First, Shooter's direct testimony as to his creation of the name Karate Kid is not hearsay. I've known some dumb judges, but none that were that dumb. As to the comic book, it is hearsay as to the creator of the character. It's an out of court statement presented for the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6) provide that newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating documents, so they can be admitted as evidence without foundation...which is probably what he's talking about as to the lawyers arguing about cases about magazines. But that doesn't mean you can just prove anything with a simple magazine article. And that funnybook would have had to have been produced in discovery and have been provided to the opposition in an Exhibit List and, depending on the Court rules, pre-marked as an exhibit. If Shooter just "brought it along" it was not coming in. Even if it had come in it would have been corroborating evidence of his direct testimony because the funnybook is hearsay as to his creation of the name and character.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 2, 2023 10:06:49 GMT -5
And Shooter's blog had more spin in it than a Maytag washing machine; so, take anything in it with a mine of salt. Also, keep in mind the phrase, "The villain is the hero of his own story."
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jun 2, 2023 11:48:02 GMT -5
Since that bit about the Columbia/Karate Kid case is just a brief aside in a much longer post about something I else, I think Shooter just provided a summarized account of what happened to get his point across. Although I'm no expert on US court proceedings, I think it's more likely that after the judge made that jury instruction the attorney probably asked Shooter a few focused questions to which he responded with those points that contradicted the judge's claim. What I'm actually finding a bit unusual is that the judge would even do something like that, since it seems like he's putting his foot on the scale, i.e., contesting the validity of that comic book as evidence should be a matter left to the opposing counsel, not the judge. But like I said, I'm no expert on this kind of stuff, and also like I said, this is just a brief aside in a longer blog post, and Shooter was writing it about a decade and half afterward, so there's some question as to how accurately he's recounting everything.
I don't believe for a second the judge did what Shooter said that he did. First, Shooter's direct testimony as to his creation of the name Karate Kid is not hearsay. I've known some dumb judges, but none that were that dumb. As to the comic book, it is hearsay as to the creator of the character. It's an out of court statement presented for the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6) provide that newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating documents, so they can be admitted as evidence without foundation...which is probably what he's talking about as to the lawyers arguing about cases about magazines. But that doesn't mean you can just prove anything with a simple magazine article. And that funnybook would have had to have been produced in discovery and have been provided to the opposition in an Exhibit List and, depending on the Court rules, pre-marked as an exhibit. If Shooter just "brought it along" it was not coming in. Even if it had come in it would have been corroborating evidence of his direct testimony because the funnybook is hearsay as to his creation of the name and character. By the way, the comic book couldn't even prove that he created the character, at the time there weren't credits with the writer's name. But it could prove when the character was created, I suppose. But why did he even have to be a witness? Couldn't the lawyers just bring the comic book as evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 2, 2023 12:00:18 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second the judge did what Shooter said that he did. First, Shooter's direct testimony as to his creation of the name Karate Kid is not hearsay. I've known some dumb judges, but none that were that dumb. As to the comic book, it is hearsay as to the creator of the character. It's an out of court statement presented for the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6) provide that newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating documents, so they can be admitted as evidence without foundation...which is probably what he's talking about as to the lawyers arguing about cases about magazines. But that doesn't mean you can just prove anything with a simple magazine article. And that funnybook would have had to have been produced in discovery and have been provided to the opposition in an Exhibit List and, depending on the Court rules, pre-marked as an exhibit. If Shooter just "brought it along" it was not coming in. Even if it had come in it would have been corroborating evidence of his direct testimony because the funnybook is hearsay as to his creation of the name and character. By the way, the comic book couldn't even prove that he created the character, at the time there weren't credits with the writer's name. But it could prove when the character was created, I suppose. But why did he even have to be a witness? Couldn't the lawyers just bring the comic book as evidence? No. The comic book itself could be admitted because it's self-authenticating. But you'd still have to have testimony from someone involved in the creation of the character. The book itself is hearsay (an out of court statement submitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Also, while the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in civil cases, fundamental fairness and equity lean heavily in favor of the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses. You can't cross-examine a funnybook. The admission of the book is corroboration evidence of the testimony of the witness.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jun 2, 2023 12:11:47 GMT -5
By the way, the comic book couldn't even prove that he created the character, at the time there weren't credits with the writer's name. But it could prove when the character was created, I suppose. But why did he even have to be a witness? Couldn't the lawyers just bring the comic book as evidence? No. The comic book itself could be admitted because it's self-authenticating. But you'd still have to have testimony from someone involved in the creation of the character. The book itself is hearsay (an out of court statement submitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Also, while the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in civil cases, fundamental fairness and equity lean heavily in favor of the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses. You can't cross-examine a funnybook. The admission of the book is corroboration evidence of the testimony of the witness. But how they could prove that he was involved with the creation of the character?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 2, 2023 12:22:27 GMT -5
No. The comic book itself could be admitted because it's self-authenticating. But you'd still have to have testimony from someone involved in the creation of the character. The book itself is hearsay (an out of court statement submitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Also, while the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in civil cases, fundamental fairness and equity lean heavily in favor of the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses. You can't cross-examine a funnybook. The admission of the book is corroboration evidence of the testimony of the witness. But how they could prove that he was involved with the creation of the character? I’d look first at Weisinger’s letters pages, where he no doubt mentioned that his protege, Shooter, had created those three new Legionnaires. Idle thought: Mort solicited readers for their ideas for new Legionnaires. I can’t be sure, but I think there were a couple of those contributions that made it into print.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 2, 2023 12:36:33 GMT -5
No. The comic book itself could be admitted because it's self-authenticating. But you'd still have to have testimony from someone involved in the creation of the character. The book itself is hearsay (an out of court statement submitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Also, while the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in civil cases, fundamental fairness and equity lean heavily in favor of the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses. You can't cross-examine a funnybook. The admission of the book is corroboration evidence of the testimony of the witness. But how they could prove that he was involved with the creation of the character? His testimony is direct evidence he created the character. It is then up to the trier of fact to determine if that testimony is credible.
|
|