Actually the resurection from 190 is in Volume 3 of the visonaries, which i own.

Oops - I guess I must have misremembered it.

I hate little Audrey so! Much!

If I understood the ending of Elektra Lives Again correctly, I don't blame Miller for being upset after he crafted such a wonderful haunting story on memory and loss as Elektra's death, and then having it erased by corporate guys selling a product. It's not often mentioned among his great works, but it certainly deserves to be ranked up there with Batman Year One and his two Daredevil runs.

Whether it was an enforceable verbal contract or not, it was incredibly short sighted to try to screw Miller like this. If he came back to write a few more runs on Daredevil or Elektra, or other work for Marvel, I'm sure it would sell in collected form many more copies over the years than any of new Elektra stuff and make a lot more money. It's like DC should not have battled Alan Moore over small money upfront when they could be having him make big money for them over the long run and, even more importantly, great lasting art.

In the Elektra Assassin series, it is supposed to take place before she returns into Murdock's life as told in her debut issue 168.

In Elektra Lives Again, she appears in the white outfit of 190 and secretly protects Matt Murdock. He thinks he is just imagining that she is alive and then only finds out that she lived again after she dies saving him. At least that's how I understood it to end. It didn't read in the straightforward way that his two Daredevil runs read and was more poetic and metaphorical so the whole story is purposely vague. So it seems like in the Miller cannon, Elektra is dead again. Maybe.

I'm doing all of this by memory from reading the issues when they came out so the details and issue numbers may not be correct.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkness_%28comics%29#References)

that The writer and editor, Ann Nocenti, claims that she was hired to write a treatment and first issue for the comic, but was never paid or credited for her published work. I went and read the interview and sure enough she at least claims that thats true. I own "The Darkness" compendium and the first issue appears to be written (much like the next few issues) by Garth Ennis. I hope that you have the resources to uncover the truth for me, not that i don't trust Ann Nocenti's word but seriously i would think that this would be a really big deal. and Ann Nocenti's work on Daredevil was spectacular... that doesn't have anything to do with what im asking i just wanted to say that.

Oh and here is the URL for the interview where Ann Nocenti brings it up
http://www.manwithoutfear.com/interviews/ddINTERVIEW.shtml?id=Nocenti

I’ve seen one page from it, and it was Bernie at his best, not the sub-par work that he did on P.O.V. and to a lesser extent, on the Cult and The Weird.

That makes it a real shame that the story's written by Ron Marz

Elektra WAS brought back to life in a white outfit in DAREDEVIL not all that long after Bullseye killed her, and I sure thought Miller was still writing it then.

I didn't know that happened in Daredevil. I've got the Elektra Saga TPB which is basically edited together bits from Miller's Daredevil along with a framing sequence by Miller, and the resurrection happens in that, but it's nowhere to be seen in the Daredevil Visionaries: Frank Miller books. Can anyone clear this up?

As for the Epic mini with her, was that the first time Marvel used it for an adult--oriented version of something they already owned instead of the originally indicated intent of creator--owned stuff? I know the imprint was later used for an "Iron Man of the future" GN.

Also: Little Aubrey just bugs me. Has ever since I was a kid. Those ghastly big eyes... brrrr.

And she's a low-rent unfunny Lulu knock-off. But mostly the eyes.

• Offer: The person making the offer in a verbal contract must communicate their intent to enter into a contract. A verbal contract is not considered valid if all parties do not agree to the terms of the offer. Also, verbal contracts are only valid for a specified period of time and not indefinitely.

• Acceptance: A verbal contract is not valid until the offer is accepted. The acceptance of a verbal contract occurs when the person to whom the contract is offered voluntarily indicates agreement to its terms and conditions.

• Consideration: In addition to an offer and acceptance, verbal contracts must contain consideration. This means that each side must give the other something of value for the agreement to be binding. In most verbal contracts, this is an exchange of money, such as a down payment. However, in some cases, it is not money but a promise that is exchanged.

Verbal Contract Law

Verbal contracts are a convenient and commonly used form of agreement between two parties. However, the main problem with a verbal contract is that if any problems should arise and there were no witnesses to the agreement, the case is reduced to one party''s word against another''s. Even if verbal contract law is followed, a verbal contract is often easily contested.

It could also be argued on Miller's behalf that he did a mini-series as part of Epic, which was devoted solely to creator-owned properties, so, you know, Marvel had already publically given him claims to the character in spirit if not writing.

"Miller told Comics Interview that Elektra Lives Again is supposed to take place before Born Again, even though it was published in 1990."

ELA was horribly late. I have an issue of Marvel Age circa Miller's return to Daredevil (late-1985) which shows artwork from the graphic novel. Last year I picked up an issue of DD that I was missing, 222 or so, and in the letter column responding to what Miller was up to next because of the feedback for his fill-in in DD 218, they mention ELA as his next project. Considering it was only 2 or 3 issues removed from him returning to DD, I think his return may have been a last minute thing, thus screwing up the timeline.

The legal point does matter big time.

The question was not "Did Frank Miller have a legally binding contract with Marvel giving him rights to the usage of Elektra?"

It was "Did Frank Miller have an agreement with Marvel giving him certain rights to the usage of Elektra?"

That's all that is being discussed here.

Whether such an agreement is legally valid is not really the issue.

If you wish to discuss the legality of the contract as WELL, that's totally cool. Go right ahead. Totally cool by me.

But it does not "matter big time" to the question, which was just "was there an agreement," which there was.

The question folks just had was “Was there an agreement with Marvel where they would give Miller some degree of control over the character,” and there was. //

The legal point does matter big time. According to all reports it was a verbal agreement between Miller and a Marvel editor, nothing I've ever read indicated there was a signed contract and it's entirly possible that editor was overstepping his bounds in making such an aggrement in the first place. Any laweyer will tell you that if you don't have an agreement in writing you really don't have an enforcable legal agreement. Miller must be aware of these points otherwise he would have been suing over this years ago.