Marv Wolfman has generally avoided commenting in public about his business affairs as a professional comics writer, and after filing a 1997 lawsuit against Marvel Characters, Inc., claiming ownership of all the characters he had created for Marvel Comics, he declined to talk to the Journal on the record about the case during the three years that it was pending. In the aftermath of Judge Roderick McKelvie's November 2000 ruling against all of Wolfman's claims, Wolfman agreed to talk to the Journal about what he described as "the absolute worst days that I've ever had."

In earlier conversation, Wolfman expressed disappointment that he had not received more support from other creators. If Wolfman found himself struggling alone against a corporate behemoth, however, it is almost certainly due at least in part to his own reluctance to appeal to other creators for help or to talk in public about the case. Wolfman's attorney Michael Diliberto also pointed out to the Journal that it was easier for Marvel, a prime source of employment in the industry, to find helpful creator witnesses than it was for Marvel's lone opponent. In addition, as Wolfman explains here, money was a limited resource that had a major impact on the strength of his case versus the strength of Marvel's. The high cost of bringing in witnesses and paying for their time and expenses discouraged Wolfman from calling more than a single witness.

Even if they were not at his side in the courtroom, many comics creators were eagerly awaiting the outcome of the trial, some of them contemplating their own legal actions, depending on Wolfman's success or failure. In reviewing the experience with Wolfman, the Journal's goal was to look more closely at what went wrong for Wolfman and what the implications of his case might be for creators throughout the industry. Because the following interview makes constant reference to details of Wolfman's trial, we recommend that the transcripts of the trial in TCJ #236 and #239 be read first.

MICHAEL DEAN: Because so many creators were watching the outcome of this, I'd like to try to get at the fact that you didn't win the case. Is this something that should be cause for despair among all creators? How much of a precedent is this for other cartoonists, and how much of it is very specific to your case?

MARV WOLFMAN: OK. I have no idea how much of it is a precedent or not. The trial was very specific. It was handled in bankruptcy court, and therefore I can't say if it had been tried in a different court would there have been a different result. That's what we knew we were getting into when we went to bankruptcy court, and we have to deal with the results.

DEAN: You would have rather had it tried in California outside of bankruptcy court. Why would that have made a difference?

WOLFMAN: The rules of bankruptcy court and other courts are slightly different, because [in bankruptcy court] the characters are treated as assets.

DEAN: To try to get at what went wrong, from going through the transcripts, it seems like you ran into a bunch of obstacles. I noticed that sometimes you were asked legal questions and you didn't seem to.... Based on your answers, you indicated that you didn't really know the law on things like trademark and derivative characters. I was wondering if this was a specific strategy on your lawyer's part to not give too much legalese language when you were responding? Or if this was something you wish you had been more prepared for?

WOLFMAN: Whether it was a strategy or not, you'd actually have to speak with my lawyer. I have no idea. I don't believe that we did anything wrong. I believe that we presented the case as best we could with the material we could in the court that the trial was in. And once again, even though I might not agree (in fact, I don't agree) with the results, we have to accept the results.

DEAN:. One problem, and I think we talked about this a little bit before.... Your principal witness beside yourself was Mark Evanier. He was testifying as an expert on the industry. It seems as though there were a lot of objections raised -- and some of them were sustained -- that a lot Evanier's knowledge was coming from hearsay. I'm just wondering if you would have been better off if you had had a whole parade of direct witnesses that would have testified directly about some of the things that Mark was testifying about indirectly, if you follow what I'm saying.

WOLFMAN: I do, but I have to disagree with you. Mark was there and he presented in writing, which does not come through, by the way, in the trial transcripts. These have to do with the pieces of law that are done prior to a trial and after the trial. He presented contracts that Gold Key, Dell and Disney gave to writers before they began work. That was Mark's purpose, because he could speak and he could present legal contracts that all of these companies did do to show that there was no industry standard in that case. Mark did exactly what we needed him to do.

DEAN: Marvel had a pretty cutthroat attorney. I guess it was nerve-wracking being cross-examined by that attorney?

WOLFMAN: I've never been in a court before in any way. Even when I've been brought for jury duty, for one reason or another I've never been selected. I can tell you, being grilled by any attorney, whether it's the opposing council or even your own is the most horrendous and awful experience anyone can go through that is not deadly, except emotionally.

DEAN: Did your attorney try to prepare you for that kind of a thing?

WOLFMAN: He certainly asked me all of the questions. And he encouraged me to tell what I knew and tell what I believed. It was: State the facts as you know them. Give the facts - don't lie. Try to be as calm as you can, because you will be nervous. I had no idea how nervous I would actually be. It was incredibly scary.

DEAN: I asked Michael Diliberto [Wolfman's attorney] about that and he basically said that no matter how much you try to rehearse something like that, nothing quite prepares you for being in the courtroom.

WOLFMAN: No, not if you have never been in one before. Television -- which is the extent of my knowledge with courts - is not at all the same as when you are on the witness stand and they are grilling you endlessly on material that happened 25 years before. And you're trying to keep your dates, and you're trying to keep your language correct, and you're trying to remember everything. My memory for names is very bad. My memory for events is very good. But trying to remember names and trying to remember specifics -- you're always tripping up. I've always said that I'm not a good speaker in the first place so imagine having all of that pressure on top of you.

DEAN: Another thing that seemed to hurt you was a lack of physical evidence. I think that applied to both sides. Some of the documents that you referred to specifically were things you'd worked up prior to coming to Marvel to describe characters that you'd developed prior to coming to Marvel. You did not have the physical evidence that you were trying to describe.

WOLFMAN: The only physical evidence that I did not have was the page on Blade. And that's because I always threw away the stuff once it was used. I had the script on Janus, because that was never printed. I had my fanzines, which had Nova in it. I had my copyright papers. I had everything but a one-page piece on Blade. Since the trial, as you know, was not on Blade but a number of characters, I had everything but one piece.

DEAN: Marvel had the same problem in that they were not able to bring up any physical evidence of your having signed the statements that were supposedly signed by creators on the backs of checks. You had indicated that you had not seen that and had not signed that?

WOLFMAN: No. I did not remember it. Yeah.

DEAN: I think they weren't able to find any documentation from that period at all?

WOLFMAN: That's true. They couldn't.

DEAN: The judge doesn't seem to make much of that, though.

WOLFMAN: What can I say?

DEAN: Getting back to the issue of hearsay, Marvel had a couple of people. They had Jim Shooter, they John Byrne testifying on their behalf. You had Mark Evanier. Would you have been better off if you would have had more creators with direct experience with these contracts?

WOLFMAN: You know how expensive it is to bring people across the country and put them up in hotels and depose them?

DEAN: So that was a major issue?

WOLFMAN: Of course, that was a major issue. We had letters on the other hand -- none of which you saw, of course. We did have letters from a large number of people, from Will Eisner sideways.

DEAN: Can you give me a rough number of how many letters you might have had from creators?

WOLFMAN: We asked about a half-dozen people and they all gave it to us. I believe it was about a half-dozen. It is two years ago now.

DEAN: Would one have been Gene Colan?

WOLFMAN: Gene was deposed, so we didn't have a letter from him.

DEAN: So this is in addition to the depositions. Any others that come to mind?

WOLFMAN: Not that I can think of at the moment and none that I would mention in print except for Will. Which, by the way, was done because Will had maintained ownership of The Spirit. To show that there was not, even back in 1940s or late '30s, a consistency of ownership.

DEAN: I'm gathering from the testimony that your position is that no one at Marvel, down the years, told you that you did not own Blade.

WOLFMAN: Well, my position was I never signed anything that said I gave away the rights. There was not a single piece of paper that I signed that said I gave away the rights, and I was never verbally informed about that at Marvel. Whereas I had been at DC.

DEAN: So you believed that you owned Blade?

WOLFMAN: I believed that I owned my characters.

DEAN: And not just Blade, but you did believe that you owned all of the characters that you created while at Marvel?

WOLFMAN: Yes. I did believe that. Obviously, by the court's decision, I don't. It's not one I'm going to argue with. The decision has been made. I've had my day in court. I have to live with whatever result and I can't go beyond that.

DEAN: Did you not know then, that Marvel would fight you? Did you feel that once you mentioned to everybody, "Wait a minute. I own all of these characters," that they would say,"Oh, OK". You must have known from the beginning that they would resist that position.

WOLFMAN: My original position with them was not suing, but asking for the same deal that they currently have with their creators of a percentage [of profits paid in royalties]. And that was in the original messages and letters that were supplied to the court As far as I can tell, courts are there so you can have your day in court. But all of the major work is actually done before and after in legal paperwork. You did not see all of that material.

DEAN: But now, you held off in making an issue of this for a number of years. I guess you questioned when the Blade storyline was used in the Japanese video.

WOLFMAN: Blade was never used in the Japanese video. The storyline without Blade, actually. He was removed from that story. The last two-year story that I did in Tomb of Dracula was the essence of that film from beginning to end.

DEAN: Their response was that you didn't make explicit that you were demanding rights for a property you felt you owned.

WOLFMAN: It's hard for me to remember exactly. Stories were copyrighted by Marvel. I was not arguing that I owned that story. I was arguing that I owned the original characters. I felt that I should be compensated for that story because that was my story, not that I owned the story.

DEAN: You've stated that you'd made up your mind to raise this issue even before you knew there was going to be a Blade movie?

WOLFMAN: Yes.

DEAN: But isn't it fair to say that it was the fact that a movie was being made that made a legal fight sort of worthwhile?

WOLFMAN: I think it's fair to say only that lawyers were interested in handling the case because of that. However, I was contacted because of comments I made prior to the knowledge of the movie. I don't know if I would have gotten a lawyer to work with me except for that, but my original letters went out beforehand.

DEAN: Do you think it's harder for a writer to make a case like this than it would be, say, for an artist?

WOLFMAN: I have no idea. I would not know at all.

DEAN: The reason I'm asking that is that -- we were talking about physical evidence -- if an artist creates a character, they often have sketches and things like that that would indicate work done.

WOLFMAN: I had copyright papers. I thought that was enough.

DEAN: Copyright papers?

WOLFMAN: On Nova.

DEAN: So you had filed for copyright at the time you did the...

WOLFMAN: In 1960 something. We had the copyright papers in the courtroom.

DEAN: There, I guess, the judge's response was that he felt the character was different in the version that was in Marvel comics from your original incarnation of the character?

WOLFMAN: That's what he felt. I disagreed with it because in my mind I would have just used a different name if I didn't think they were connected. Yes, they were very different, but I believe that one was very much an adjunct of the other.

DEAN: He seemed to make an effort to actually look at these comics characters and what distinguishes them.

WOLFMAN: No, he read... I don't know if he did or not, but he was going by Jeff Rovin's paperwork to explain the difference. I disagreed with what Jeff had to say tremendously, including the fact that he said that in my fanzine Nova's costume was black and white, whereas in the comic it was blue and yellow. Well, my fanzine was in black and white, so it couldn't have been in color. And Len Wein, who created the Nova costume, always said that it was in blue and yellow. And he's the one who in fact came up with the color design when we did it in the comic book. And he said, "That was the color that he had planned from the day that he came up with that costume."

DEAN: I believe Jeff was emphasizing that the origins were different?

WOLFMAN: The origins were different, except for the fact that they were created by space aliens blasting the hero. The costumes were 95 percent similar, only minor differences. Nova in the fanzine had antennas, which looked silly to me. He had five stars and I simplified it to three, things like that.

DEAN: The judge seemed to feel the difference between the skating capability and the flying capability was significant.

WOLFMAN: The Nova in my fanzine flew, but he flew using something called sky skates. He was still flying. It was just like a jet pack. Yes, there were differences and I've said that. However, there are differences from the 1938 Superman to the 1990 Superman. The current Superman does a tremendous number of things that the original could not do, for instance has X-ray vision, is invulnerable to anything pretty much, can fly, etc. The original could only jump. And of course, the costume has changed, as well, even though it's similar.

DEAN: Did you just have a bad three days in court? Was this a case that could have gone differently given a different judge?

WOLFMAN: I would like to think it could have. But if you insist upon going over something in your head endlessly, all you'll do is get the wall bloody by hitting your head against it too much. We did what we could do in the court we were assigned. We did the best that we can do. We lost and we have to go on from there. I'm not interested in reliving those particular days because they were the absolute worst days that I've ever had.

DEAN: Really?

WOLFMAN: Not made any easier by Mr. Byrne.

DEAN: He really was making faces in the back there?

WOLFMAN: He was making faces whenever I'd look in his direction. Because the comments I had to make referred to him, he would start to make faces. He would move up and down. There was a wall in front of him, a couple feet high where the witnesses are behind. He would like lower himself so I couldn't see him then raise himself up. He would start shaking his head no as if I was making a mistake, and he flustered me, because I'm trying to remember specific events. He was acting very much like a two-and-a-half-year-old child who has not had any Ritalin.

DEAN: Do you think he was trying to break your concentration to make you testify poorly?

WOLFMAN: Either he was trying to do that, or he has a problem where he can't sit still, like everyone else could.

DEAN: Were there hard feelings between the two of you prior to this?

WOLFMAN: We've never really gotten along well ever since Superman, but I was unaware that it was anything more than difference of opinion on work. I never had any problems with John personally, but obviously he had one with me. It could be because Luthor, which was my creation, turned out to be more important and lasting than most of the things that he had added to the mythos. I would hope to think that that's not the reason. I'd almost prefer thinking that I had done something without knowing it, because that would be really childish if it were just based on things of that sort. I have no idea why. You'd have to ask him.

DEAN: Because it's one thing to be willing to testify on behalf of Marvel if you happen to feel that their position is justified...

WOLFMAN: Absolutely. Jeff Rovin, who lost the case for me because of his paperwork, sat there as a professional, stated his points of view. They were different from what I believed. It was never personal. It was always professional and he said what he believed was the truth. But at no point did he do anything that I would say would alienate me from him. Jim Shooter, who I don't get along with in any way, shape or form was also absolutely professional, and sat there sphynx-like without trying to distract me or anything. When it was his turn on the bench, he said what he believed. I believe that most of it was incorrect, but -- you know -- that's not the point. It's difference of opinion. John seemed to go out of his way to create problems.

DEAN: You say you feel Jeff Rovin's testimony hurt you.

WOLFMAN: It's not in the verbal testimony. It's in the written testimony. As I said, all of the legal material, and all of the stuff that the judge actually looked at was there -- not in the three days of court.

DEAN: The kinds of things that he submitted were I guess his descriptions of differences in the characters?

WOLFMAN: Correct. Because I believe that [Marvel's published Janus and the original] Janus, whose script I used as the basis of the final appearance in the Tomb of Dracula pages and scenes, were identical, even to the point of using the same words on occasion. They were absolutely identical. But Jeff was able to prove otherwise to the judge's decision.

DEAN: The characters that you are claiming in the course of your trial run the gamut in terms of complexity. You have some characters that are somewhat developed, and then you have other characters who seem to be very minimally sketched out. Is that fair to say?

WOLFMAN: I listed in my claim all of the characters I created.

DEAN: The one that came up in John Byrne's testimony was, for example, Terrax. And John Byrne's description of your description of Terrax was that he was "a guy with an ax."

WOLFMAN: Well, I believe there was more to it than that. I did not have a chance and could not get back on the stands to refute any of that stuff so John's testimony is as it is.

DEAN: What would you have said?

WOLFMAN: First of all, I gave a lot more depth than that. Visually I may have said he was a big gray guy, or a big purple guy, whatever he was, with an ax.

DEAN: Because that's what [the artist] would need to know.

WOLFMAN: He would need to know that. But I also explained the concept of the character, where he came from, why he was the character, how he fit into the galactic pantheon of element-based characters, etc. What he wanted, why he wanted it. To me, that was the character not the description. The artist's job was to come up with the visual. All I had to describe -- and I don't have a copy of the plot to be able to say that I didn't say that his costume was like this. But I tend to doubt I said that. There would be no reason for me. I would say what he was emotionally and conceptually so that the artist would know what that was. That story was not plotted for John Byrne. That story was actually plotted for Jack Kirby. Therefore I would not have gone into as much detail, because with Jack, you would not want to hem him in. It was only at the last moment that Jack decided not to do the Fantastic Four and it was handed to John.

DEAN: Getting back to the issue of the difference between you as a writer claiming a copyright on a character and an artist doing the same thing...

WOLFMAN: I don't want to interrupt, but you're asking me questions that I have no knowledge of and could not even begin to speak with any certainty or veracity. I just don't know anything about it. If you have a point, just add it to your piece, because I can't give you an answer.

DEAN: O.K. I won't get to add too many points because this will be a Q&A. But let me make my point here. It seems like it's a very collaborative form, comics. To some extent you're bringing some stuff and the artist is bringing some stuff and I guess I'm asking, doesn't that kind of complicate the question of who owns what? I don't mean that necessarily as a legal question, but in terms of getting it straight in your own head who owns what, who created what?

WOLFMAN: You know, I'm sure that you're correct. I do believe that there are places that I would say -- George Pérez and I don't own it because we very clearly signed away the rights on paper, but the Teen Titans, that was a co-creation. Gene Colan and I own Curse of Dracula that we did for Dark Horse. Even though I created all of the characters conceptually, Gene created them all visually. He was given a complete story to work from and we own it together. I do believe that ultimately that's the way that all comics should be, where they are owned by the creators.

DEAN: It seems, from talking to Colan and reading what little bits of his deposition that got into the trial, that he was trying to back up your case as much as he could. He was trying to be loyal to you and to support your case as much as he was able, but didn't your case, at least in respect to Blade, depend on cutting Colan out as a co-creator? Part of your case is that you created the character prior to even coming to Marvel.

WOLFMAN: Well, I did create the characters. Marvel did not deny that. It's right in their own books at the time period when I came to Marvel. You can look up the issue that Blade appeared in, in Tomb of Dracula and look up the Bullpen Bulletins page, which announces I just came there. And you know those things were written like three weeks before print date and the books were done four months before. I was at Warren. Nobody ever questioned that. So that's not the point. Marvel never once questioned that I was at Warren when I did it. Their question was, and the logical question they had to ask, was "Does it matter?" And the judge believed it didn't matter that I was there. The "instance and expense," which is what I lost on in terms of Blade, was that they still provided the ability to put it in that book and then paid for it.

DEAN: The question of instance and expense. That was the test that the judge brought to bear because that was the law at the time that Blade came into being. Do you think that you would have a better chance today if all of these events had happened under the new law?

WOLFMAN: Under the new copyright law? I would have known that I sold the rights before I even wrote the story. It would have been on paper. I would have put my signature on a legal document and I would have known full well that I had sold the rights. I knew it at DC. They went out of their way to tell you that. Marvel, even in paperwork that was submitted to the court, admitted that they never did. So there was nothing ever in writing or verbal.

DEAN: I think they claimed that there was something in writing but they just couldn't produce it. They seemed to think that you would have signed these checks.

WOLFMAN: Well, I could have said that I had a piece of paper that said I owned Spider-Man but I can't find it. It's what you present in court. Ultimately it doesn't matter. They won. They have the rights to those characters. They own those characters. I'm still the creator or co-creator of those characters and that's not going to change and they weren't ever trying to change that. Again, I have no beef with Marvel. They were fighting the fight that they felt they had to fight. I wish that we had been able to work it out before it ever got to court, where I would have gotten my percentages and Gene would have gotten his percentages and all of the other creators, by the way. Because Black Cat, I understand, was on the Spider-Man cartoon show. And I know that Bullseye is the villain in the Daredevil movie that's going to be coming out and I created those, as well.

DEAN: Are you not angry at Marvel now?

WOLFMAN: Not at all. I wasn't angry at Marvel then. I was at a convention with one of the past presidents of Marvel when this was happening and we were talking. I never had a problem with Marvel. I had a problem with a legal business decision that had to be done. Marvel won't hire me because I sued them, but I still don't have a problem with them. I think they're doing currently some of the best material they've done in years.

DEAN: I can see not being angry about them defending their properties, but I would think you might be a little angry that they would hold it against you and not be willing to hire you as a creator.

WOLFMAN: I think it's childish, but hey, I've been really stupid at times, too. I just don't feel like that. If you spend your life being angry at people after your initial confrontation, you're going to be angry your entire life. I tend to be the type who blows up very fast, unfortunately, and then it's gone because I've said what I've needed to say. Some people think that it's because I have that New York directness about me. Even if I am angry it's very quick. Once I've said my piece - good, bad, indifferent -- it's gone. Otherwise, I couldn't produce another piece of work. I couldn't live a real life. I'd be very unhappy all of the time.

It's different in other fields. There are lawsuits going on [in Hollywood] while you're working at a company and you get a contract to do something at a better rate and the suit is still going on. And it's not ever held in that personal way. I'm sorry that they [at Marvel] feel it is. I would hope that with some time that would pass. Because, frankly -- I'm saying this fully knowing that I probably will never work for Marvel again -- I think they're doing a great job now. I think that the hiring of Joe Quesada was one of the smartest things they could do. I think that he's turned around the company. I wish they'd use me, but it's very possible that had I not sued them I would still not be hired by them. They may not want my type of work.

DEAN: How do you know that they wouldn't hire you now?

WOLFMAN: I was told that directly. I brought a project to them this summer with an artist attached, which the editors loved and so did the editor in chief. I was then told that the upstairs people wouldn't let them hire me. I went, "OK. Can't we talk about it?" And they said, "I wish we could. We tried. We really would like to do this, but I don't think it's going to happen." So I moved on. The artist will be working for them, but unfortunately it's someone I found and brought into comics in this fashion. I would have loved to have done the job with him.

DEAN: So it's "somebody upstairs?"

WOLFMAN: Yeah. I have no idea who it is. But it wasn't editorial, which has no problems with me.

DEAN: You said that once you've said what needs saying you tend not to hold onto bad feelings, so let me just ask if you've said everything you feel needs saying on the subject of your day in court with Marvel.

WOLFMAN: Yeah. I think the only bad feelings I'm going to be holding on to, quite frankly, are with John Byrne and not with Marvel. Because Marvel did what they had to do. John did things that I don't believe he had to do.

DEAN: Have you talked to him since then?

WOLFMAN: No. I won't. I'm afraid I'd go for his throat. It was very hurtful. All I can say is that I was terribly hurt and terribly bothered by it, and I'm sure that people could understand that when all attention is paid to you on a court, on the witness stand, and you're trying very hard to say your piece and answer questions that are very difficult to answer, that decorum and civilization sort of demands that the people in the room at least have a modicum of respect and let the process be done. I was incredibly hurt, more than you can imagine. You would have to have been there to know the effect of what John did, and I'm sure he probably doesn't care because he did it. But it was the most hurtful thing that has ever happened to me. And I've had people scream at me. But it's always over something that I may have done or he may have done or whatever. This was just hurtful beyond belief.

DEAN: The judge kind of just shrugged it off.

WOLFMAN: The judge gave us all a lot of latitude. John didn't do it after the first time I mentioned it. But that doesn't matter. It was there, and he was very smug on the stand when he had to speak and he made certain glances at my attorney based on previous meetings with him and very carefully chose a couple of words to hurt my attorney. Not my attorney, but my attorney's assistant. I don't know. I don't want to speculate as to any reasons why he did this. All I can say was that it was incredibly hurtful. Whereas I have, in my 30 years, never said anything nasty in print about anything, the fact that I've said this should indicate how I feel. And I've had some real good occasions to have said stuff, and I just don't believe in doing that. This was so hurtful, it created an awful lot of pain.

DEAN: Are there some other thing that you can think of that you wish you would have been able to say in court if you'd been able to testify again after some of the other witnesses?

WOLFMAN: I would have corrected some of mistakes that were made. But that's about it. Jim Shooter made a statement saying that he went up to Marvel about my complaint on the Tomb of Dracula movie because he wanted to keep me happy at Marvel. But I had left Marvel two and a half years before the movie came out, and I was in the middle of a five-year contract. So why would he have gone up to make me happy when I had already left two and a half years before? I would have corrected things like that. I don't think that it would have made any difference, because as I said, I think that the judge made his decisions based on what he believed to be law in bankruptcy court, which is slightly different because the characters are treated as assets. We did it. We did the best we could. I would not pursue this in any way. I believe I've had my day in court and I don't believe in continuing it. I did what I thought I needed to do. I hope someday other people do get their rights back or get their rights at all. But quite frankly, I don't believe that any of the comments that I could have corrected would have meant anything other than soothing my ego or to correct things.... I was never fired from Marvel as Jim Shooter said. I did quit, and Stan Lee admitted that when asked because of what Shooter said. That was my decision. But who cares? I hate to say it, but how many people have ever believed anything he said? Ultimately, I did what I felt I needed to do. I believe that if I had not done it, I would not be able to go see a Blade film. I would not be able to buy a Blade toy. Now I can say, "I lost, but I lost in the court of law." I have no problem doing any of that stuff. I have a whole shelf of Blade material here. I'm exceedingly proud of the movie -- even though I had nothing to do with it -- because that is my character. And they made really no changes in it. I thought it was a very good film. Unlike a lot of people who have to just sit there and grit their teeth and be angry at the whole world because they got screwed, I did what I felt I needed to do. I lost. But it's gone. That's history.