Filming has begun on the sequel to Scott Adkin's 2018 film Accident Man based on Pat Mill's story
Scott Adkins will be back playing Mike Fallon, Ray Stevenson and Perry Benson are returning as assassins Big Ray and Finicky Fred. Accident Man 2 will also bring aboard Jackie Chan Stunt Team veteran Andy Long Nguyen as Oyumi (Nguyen will also serve as fight choreographer), along with martial artists Beau Fowler as Poco The Killer Clown and Sarah Chang as Wong Siu-ling.
https://screenrant.com/accident-man-2-sequel-news-updates-story-cast/?fbclid=IwAR0x__Khc1L0w4Y101aBIizVynvXKhnfZW3Lh_ibE6HmrA33gq0NJU8VkDI
Great. Will Martin Emond be getting his rightful credit on this one, or will Accident Man again uniquely be a comic character created by two writers without the involvement of a comic artist?
But Gordon: surely with Mills's ongoing crusade about creator rights, in which he constantly slams Rebellion for any such issues, he couldn't have under any circumstances let it stand that Emond wasn't credited in the first film? And I can only assume if such a thing happened without his consent, he must have written blog posts about that grave injustice and won't have anything to do with sequels?
I did directly ask Pat on social media about the lack of any credit for Martin and accompanying proper profit share for his family, and he replied with some weak shite about the producers not wanting too many names in the credits.
Of course. It seemed strange that the champion of only his own creator rights and originator of all those devastating Mills Bombs dropped on bullshit-spouting editors and publishers would meekly accept such an arrangement, but there you go.
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 08:03:44 PM
Of course. It seemed strange that the champion of only his own creator rights and originator of all those devastating Mills Bombs dropped on bullshit-spouting editors and publishers would meekly accept such an arrangement, but there you go.
'Uncle' Pat's championing of creators' rights has never extended to artists. You only have to look at his career and ask yourself how long any of his long-running strips would have lasted if he'd extended his own "no one works on this but me" position to his co-creators (the artists) to see that almost none of his creations would have got past the first series. It's
abundantly apparent that he doesn't consider the artist an equal co-creator. I have a word for someone like that, and it's [spoiler]REDACTED[/spoiler].
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 21 November, 2021, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 08:03:44 PM
Of course. It seemed strange that the champion of only his own creator rights and originator of all those devastating Mills Bombs dropped on bullshit-spouting editors and publishers would meekly accept such an arrangement, but there you go.
'Uncle' Pat's championing of creators' rights has never extended to artists. You only have to look at his career and ask yourself how long any of his long-running strips would have lasted if he'd extended his own "no one works on this but me" position to his co-creators (the artists) to see that almost none of his creations would have got past the first series. It's abundantly apparent that he doesn't consider the artist an equal co-creator. I have a word for someone like that, and it's [spoiler]REDACTED[/spoiler].
The fact that the artists do most of the heavy lifting in the majority of "Uncle Pat"s strips just makes it worse.
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 08:03:44 PMhe replied with some weak shite about the producers not wanting too many names in the credits.
Comic book movies being famous for having short credits sequences, of course (to the degree they're often broken up by extra scenes).
Quote from: Mister Pops on 22 November, 2021, 12:30:15 AMThe fact that the artists do most of the heavy lifting in the majority of "Uncle Pat"s strips just makes it worse.
I'm part-way through the Mills section of a 2000AD UC re-read. It's quite revealing. Early Nemesis fizzes with ideas. Towards the end, though, it's very heavily reliant on Roach, Hicklenton and Flint to keep it going. ABC Warriors was the bigger surprise. I'd remembered enjoying a lot more of that than I did, but after The Black Hole it's already at the point where logic's gone out the window and character deaths are meaningless (unless they're [spoiler]Morrigun, who gets offed because girls or something[/spoiler]). The
art is great, but given how Mills is always so adamant all his work should be collected, it's interesting that this strip really suffers from it, because you see that copy/paste of ideas starting really early on.
In the world of comics great art can save poor writing but the reverse really works, my 2 cents if a writers wants to be credit for a movie the artists must be as well. Look at Walking Dead Charlie Adlard name is next to the writers
Quote from: broodblik on 22 November, 2021, 08:59:53 AM
In the world of comics great art can save poor writing but the reverse really works, my 2 cents if a writers wants to be credit for a movie the artists must be as well. Look at Walking Dead Charlie Adlard name is next to the writers
All the more interesting as Charlie Adlard isn't even the original artist - I know there was some legal agreement in the end with Tony Moore the co-creator of the series - which shows how its acknowledged how much an artist brings to a series - even after the genesis.
Its something I know I'm terribly guilty of forgetting and there seems to be some embedded view by many that the writers roll is elevated and its something I'm trying to get better at.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 21 November, 2021, 09:38:25 PM
'Uncle' Pat's championing of creators' rights has never extended to artists.
On reflection, and to be fair, I don't think Mills has ever really claimed to be championing
all creators' rights... I suspect his position is much more along the lines of "nothing's stopping other creators making the same kind of ruckus as me", but I still find myself wondering about an alternate timeline where Kev O'Neill did exactly that, vetoing Nemesis BkII and then getting to the end of BkIII and saying "Right, that's your lot. No one draws Nemesis but me, so it's over."
QuoteI did directly ask Pat on social media about the lack of any credit for Martin and accompanying proper profit share for his family, and he replied with some weak shite about the producers not wanting too many names in the credits.
IIRC, you even offered to put him in contact with the family... I'll go out on a limb here and guess he didn't take you up on it.
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 06:42:14 PM
Great. Will Martin Emond be getting his rightful credit on this one, or will Accident Man again uniquely be a comic character created by two writers without the involvement of a comic artist?
But what precisely was Emond's contribution (as a creator)? If it was purely the visual appearance then it must be noted that the characters in the movie look significantly different to those in
Toxic!, which would certainly explain the apparent snub.
Quote from: A.Cow on 02 December, 2021, 12:46:28 AM
But what precisely was Emond's contribution (as a creator)? If it was purely the visual appearance then it must be noted that the characters in the movie look significantly different to those in Toxic!, which would certainly explain the apparent snub.
That's not how it works. The IP
exists to be adapted because of the creators. Creators get credited, regardless of how far the adaptation deviates from the original work, and in what respects.
Footnote: I should add that that I don't think any of us has had sight of the contract Emond signed. It's possible that he was brought onto the project under work-for-hire terms by the writers,* in which case he wouldn't be entitled to a creator credit... although that would seem to be at odds with the entire "more equitable deal for the creators" ethos which was supposed to be one of Toxic's founding principles.
*More common than you might think. As I've mentioned before, take a look at the legal blurb of a lot of "creator owned" books and you'll find that a surprising number are "writer owned", meaning that everyone else is on WFH terms. "Creator owned" isn't a universal panacea for inequitable treatment of creators in comics... sometimes, it just changes the nature of who's doing the screwing.
Quote from: A.Cow on 02 December, 2021, 12:46:28 AM
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 06:42:14 PM
Great. Will Martin Emond be getting his rightful credit on this one, or will Accident Man again uniquely be a comic character created by two writers without the involvement of a comic artist?
But what precisely was Emond's contribution (as a creator)? If it was purely the visual appearance then it must be noted that the characters in the movie look significantly different to those in Toxic!, which would certainly explain the apparent snub.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
This just reminds me of everyone's favourite Tharg, Alan McKenzie, and his claim to have single-handedly designed and created Luke Kirby. John Ridgway was justifiably miffed about that.
I'm sure Pat Mills would be delighted with that comparison.
Quote from: A.Cow on 02 December, 2021, 12:46:28 AM
Quote from: GordonR on 21 November, 2021, 06:42:14 PM
Great. Will Martin Emond be getting his rightful credit on this one, or will Accident Man again uniquely be a comic character created by two writers without the involvement of a comic artist?
But what precisely was Emond's contribution (as a creator)? If it was purely the visual appearance then it must be noted that the characters in the movie look significantly different to those in Toxic!, which would certainly explain the apparent snub.
Well, quite apart from the point that that's irrelevant; as a co-creator you should get a credit, broadly speaking very few writers don't take on board the strength of their artists [exceptions being when the writers don't know who those artists are], and Mills- in the past -has very vocally made a point about always writing to the artists strength, in other words, without Edmond's contribution on the visuals, Accident Man would be entirely different (how could it not be, look at Edmond's visual, they're so distinct you can't just slot another artist in there an expect if to be the same).
Quote from: pauljholden on 02 December, 2021, 01:24:02 PM
Well, quite apart from the point that that's irrelevant; as a co-creator you should get a credit, broadly speaking very few writers don't take on board the strength of their artists [exceptions being when the writers don't know who those artists are], and Mills- in the past -has very vocally made a point about always writing to the artists strength, in other words, without Edmond's contribution on the visuals, Accident Man would be entirely different (how could it not be, look at Edmond's visual, they're so distinct you can't just slot another artist in there an expect if to be the same).
As we saw in the following stories in Toxic! - Edmond's cross-hatched ninja was replaced by a suit-wearing yuppie.
Quote from: CalHab on 02 December, 2021, 08:43:42 AM
This just reminds me of everyone's favourite Tharg, Alan McKenzie, and his claim to have single-handedly designed and created Luke Kirby. John Ridgway was justifiably miffed about that.
I'm sure Pat Mills would be delighted with that comparison.
Alan McKenzie who claimed to own copyright on Luke Kirby - which, if true, would suggest that as Tharg he was offering himself more favourable terms than all other creators for 2000AD? I'd love to know if he paid himself the same rate as others, while (claiming to) retain the rights...
Compare and contrast with the treatment of Hilary Robinson.
The whole Luke Kirby thing -claiming he avoided signing the contract that, as an editor, he made his freelancers sign; trying to completely deny the artist any rights as co-creator - tells you everything you need to know about Alan McKenzie.
Quote from: GordonR on 02 December, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
The whole Luke Kirby thing -claiming he avoided signing the contract that, as an editor, he made his freelancers sign; trying to completely deny the artist any rights as co-creator - tells you everything you need to know about Alan McKenzie.
I have genuinely never heard a single UK freelancer speak with affection or respect about their dealings with McKenzie. I mean... even 'controversial' figures within the industry have their defenders, which makes that a pretty singular comment about his time in comics.
Quote from: GordonR on 02 December, 2021, 08:06:03 AM
Quote from: A.Cow on 02 December, 2021, 12:46:28 AM
But what precisely was Emond's contribution (as a creator)? If it was purely the visual appearance then it must be noted that the characters in the movie look significantly different to those in Toxic!, which would certainly explain the apparent snub.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
That's totally true -- I make no claim whatsoever to know anything about the practicalities or politics of the comics industry. Just seemed a logical suggestion.
Apologies if offence was caused; it's just that as a layperson I find creator rights a little perplexing at times (e.g. can someone please explain why Dave Gibbons gets the credit for Harlem Heroes instead of Carlos Trigo?)
Quote from: A.Cow on 06 December, 2021, 01:29:03 AM
Apologies if offence was caused; it's just that as a layperson I find creator rights a little perplexing at times (e.g. can someone please explain why Dave Gibbons gets the credit for Harlem Heroes instead of Carlos Trigo?)
Unless some special arrangement is made, it's usually as simple as whoever's name is on the first episode published — you don't get a creator credit for having been involved in an unused/abandoned pre-publication version. Technically, Robo-Hunter should be credited to Ferrer/Gibson as joint artistic creators, since both artists' work feature in the early episodes... I don't have a reprint volume to hand to check whether that's the case.
If those initial Ferrer episodes had been scrapped entirely, he would't get a credit. McMahon gets the artist creator credit for VCs, Angie Kincaid for Slaine, despite only having drawn one episode of each, because it was the first.*
The only big exception I can think of is Ezquerra's creator credit on Dredd, but that's an unusual one since his episode was the first drawn, and then handed off to McMahon, Gibson, et al, to work from his designs, but ended up not being the first published.
In some respects, I think Trigo got a bit of a rough deal on Harlem Heroes, though, since a fair chunk of his design work for the Prog 0 dummy seems to have survived into the published Gibbons version in Prog 1... although I'm not sure we have any way of knowing whether he was given a design brief by someone else (Doug Church, maybe?).
*As I've mentioned before, it's hard to argue that any modern incarnation of Wolverine owes more to the original Wein/Trimpe guest star in Incredible Hulk 181 than it does to the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne version from Uncanny X-Men, but Wein and Trimpe get the credit because they
created the character. Re-defining the character, no matter how well, or how definitively, doesn't get you squat.
The only exception to that I'm aware of is Jamie Delano's co-creator credit with Alan Moore for John Constantine, but that only happened because Moore asked for it to be that way.
On the re-imagining note, could anybody with a copy of Rogue Trooper: War Machine confirm whether it says 'created by Gerry Finley-Day and Dave Gibbons' or 'created by Dave Gibbons and Will Simpson'?
Quote from: sheridan on 09 December, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
On the re-imagining note, could anybody with a copy of Rogue Trooper: War Machine confirm whether it says 'created by Gerry Finley-Day and Dave Gibbons' or 'created by Dave Gibbons and Will Simpson'?
It states the following:
Rogue Trooper created by Gerry Finley-Day and Dave Gibbons
trailer for Accident man Hitman's Holiday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwJ8AFMUrPo
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 22 November, 2021, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 21 November, 2021, 09:38:25 PM
'Uncle' Pat's championing of creators' rights has never extended to artists.
On reflection, and to be fair, I don't think Mills has ever really claimed to be championing all creators' rights... I suspect his position is much more along the lines of "nothing's stopping other creators making the same kind of ruckus as me", but I still find myself wondering about an alternate timeline where Kev O'Neill did exactly that, vetoing Nemesis BkII and then getting to the end of BkIII and saying "Right, that's your lot. No one draws Nemesis but me, so it's over."
He does seem to make an exception for O'Neill, saying that Nemesis and Marshal Law are as much Kev's creation as his own.
Quote from: nxylas on 13 September, 2022, 10:09:21 PM
He does seem to make an exception for O'Neill, saying that Nemesis and Marshal Law are as much Kev's creation as his own.
Except that he was perfectly happy for Redondo to fill in on Book 2 and then to replace Kev with Bryan Talbot on Book 4. Maybe O'Neill was happy with those arrangements, but I have to ask: if Kev had taken Mills' stance of "I'm the creator and no one else works on this if I'm not involved", would Pat have respected that? I'd suggest from his track record of cheerfully replacing artists on all his 2000AD series that he probably wouldn't have.
(Marshall Law is a very different question, since it was formally creator-owned by contract, meaning that Kev probably
couldn't have been replaced unless he explicitly signed some kind of waiver.)