• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jack Kirby Heroes in Waiting (New York Times)

Started by skypinkblu,

20 posts in this topic

3319comics

3319comics

Posted
Posted

Jack Kirby’s Heroes in Waiting Sign in to Recommend

 

Published: April 12, 2010

The characteristics of a Jack Kirby illustration are easily distinguished: extravagantly costumed heroes and nefarious villains locked in titanic struggles; foreshortened fists, feet and muscles that seem to pop off the page; intricately detailed settings meant to conjure the ancient past or suggest the distant future.

 

Jack Kirby/Ruby-Spears Productions

“Roxie/Bad Guys” by Jack Kirby, who created a number of characters in the 1980s that have yet to come to light. More Photos »

 

His style made Mr. Kirby a sought-after talent at DC Comics, now a piece of the Time Warner empire, and at Marvel Comics, a recent acquisition of the Walt Disney Company. At Marvel in particular he played a crucial role in creating superheroes like the Fantastic Four, the Hulk and the X-Men — work that is now at the center of a property dispute between the heirs of Mr. Kirby, who died in 1994, and Marvel and Disney.

 

Those same signature design elements are also vividly on display in hundreds of illustrations for never-produced cartoon shows and toy lines that Mr. Kirby created in the 1980s for the animation studio Ruby-Spears Productions — work that thus far does not belong to any of the media conglomerates and that has been seen by few people.

 

Now, a partnership between that studio’s founders, Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, and Sid and Marty Krofft, the longtime children’s entertainment producers (“H. R. Pufnstuf,” “Land of the Lost”), is planning to revive these unseen Kirby characters in as many forms as possible. It’s a proposition that faces challenges as the studios scour the landscape for the next comic book or cartoon character they can transform into a franchise, but also one that has piqued the interest of some powerful Hollywood players.

 

“I love comic books, but this is a treasure,” said Ariel Z. Emanuel, the co-chief executive of the William Morris Endeavor Entertainment agency, who is representing these Kirby works for Ruby-Spears and the Kroffts. “It’s like a boat sank at the bottom of the ocean, and all of a sudden you’ve uncovered it.”

 

Mr. Kirby started working for California’s animation studios in the late 1970s after becoming disillusioned with comic-book companies in New York that he said he felt did not give him fair payment or credit for his creations. After a stint with Hanna-Barbera, he was hired by Ruby-Spears in 1980, first to design characters and backgrounds for its Saturday morning action series “Thundarr the Barbarian,” then to draw presentation boards for new projects.

 

“Many times, he didn’t have enough to do, or there weren’t enough assignments,” Mr. Spears said. “He was such a prolific guy that he would, on his own, just start sketching out some thoughts.”

 

Among the far-flung, unrealized projects that Mr. Kirby helped create or contributed to were “Roxie’s Raiders,” an Indiana Jones-style serial about a female adventurer and her allies; “Golden Shield,” about an ancient Mayan hero seeking to save earth in the apocalyptic year 2012; and “The Gargoids,” about scientists who gain superpowers after being infected by an alien virus.

 

Though none of these series made it past the planning stages, Mr. Kirby was glad to have gainful employment, health insurance for himself and his family and a job where he felt he was respected.

 

“He’d walk in, and all the young animators would fuss over him and salute him,” said Mark Evanier, the author of “Kirby: King of Comics” and a television writer who has worked for Ruby-Spears and the Kroffts. “It was fun for him to go in there, whereas in the past, when he’d gone to a comic-book company’s offices, it was a contentious atmosphere and a lot of emotional baggage.”

 

In an e-mail message, Lisa Kirby, one of Mr. Kirby’s daughters, wrote, “My dad always spoke well of Ruby-Spears, and that they treated him fairly.”

 

For more than two decades, the work that Mr. Kirby created for Ruby-Spears — an estimated 600 production boards — remained boxed up and unseen while the studio was unsure what to do with it.

 

“I’m going, ‘Joe, why don’t we just take this stuff and give it away?’ ” Mr. Spears said. But Mr. Ruby, he said, was “absolutely insistent” that “someday, someplace, somebody’s going to want this stuff.”

 

Last fall Mr. Ruby and Mr. Spears brought the properties to the Kroffts, who have begun adapting their vintage television shows into feature films, and who also saw potential in the Kirby material.

 

“This is a 20-year business for somebody,” Marty Krofft said.

 

Unlike the work that Mr. Kirby did for Marvel Comics — whose ownership may be decided by a lawsuit filed last month against Marvel and Disney by the artists’ heirs, who seek the copyrights to many of his lucrative Marvel characters — the control of his animation art is more clear-cut.

 

During his time with Ruby-Spears, Mr. Kirby was employed under a work-for-hire agreement, which means that his work is the property of the studio, lawyers for the partnership said. Marc Toberoff, a copyright lawyer representing the Kirbys in their suit against Marvel and Disney, said that he reviewed Mr. Kirby’s agreement with Ruby-Spears and that he believed any art produced under it was work for hire.

 

This affords Ruby-Spears and the Kroffts a wide berth to turn their Kirby properties into movies, television shows, comics, videos games and more — all of which they intend to pursue.

 

They will face steep competition in a marketplace already saturated with established (and not-so-established) comics characters that major media companies have spent years snapping up for their own development purposes. Compared with decades-old franchises like Batman, Superman and Captain America (the last of which Mr. Kirby created with Joe Simon), unknown properties like Roxie’s Raiders and Golden Shield have only Mr. Kirby’s pedigree to distinguish them.

 

For Mr. Emanuel, that is more than enough to get behind this cache of rediscovered material.

 

“You can’t go wrong,” he said. “Just close your eyes and throw a dart. And I only saw 5 percent of it.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

seems like a LOUSY business concept to me. But, its doable, so long as you use other peoples money cause it hags on the growing marketability of Kirbys name... seemingly marketable at least.

 

whats funny is that they loved Kirby and treated him well.... but they now OWN these characters lock stock and barrel. No mention of cutting the family in at all.

 

 

ultimately these concepts will prove as profitable as the Topps Kirby line was. Theyll go only as far as the backers are willing to keep writing checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
*paull*

*paull*

Posted
Posted

This will go nowhere. Remember Silver Star, Nightglider and Victory? No? Me either. Those were concepts that Topps Comics used. Let's face it, not many comic book fans liked Kirby's 80s and 90s output, and still many don't like anything he did in the 70s. Why would we care about this Ruby Spears stuff, let alone the general public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted

Right. And I'm not sure I buy the notion that there is marketability to Kirby's name. Maybe to comic fans (who are most likely inclined not to like his work from this era), but certainly not to the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted

Yup. But you know what? Even if the chances are slim for these concepts to be produced and/or take off, and even if the Kirby name only has marketability to comic fans, an article like this serves a wonderful purpose in that it gets a major creator’s name in the public eye, which is a great thing. The average Joe might know of the Hulk, Cap, FF etc, but most likely has never given a second thought about who made these characters and comics, or if they have may only know the name Stan Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted
hm Maybe I’m misreading your post, but I meant the average Joe reading the NY Times may never have heard of Jack Kirby even if he knows the characters Kirby is responsible for, and that spreading a major creator’s name like Kirby in the public consciousness is a good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Subliminal

Subliminal

Posted
Posted
hm Maybe I’m misreading your post, but I meant the average Joe reading the NY Times may never have heard of Jack Kirby even if he knows the characters Kirby is responsible for, and that spreading a major creator’s name like Kirby in the public consciousness is a good thing.

 

I agree with what your saying that these things will help tie the comic based movies that are out there the public are seeing with their roots.

I'm just using those words and looking forward at the task ahead for bringing these storyboards to life and in the spirit of Kirby's original ideas.

I've always been curious about what his thoughts are on where the characters he has created have gone in the hands of artists and writers that carried on the storylines after him.

He was frustrated with comic publishers who controlled his creations, that was apparent, but I wonder if it was more than just about money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted
This will go nowhere. Remember Silver Star, Nightglider and Victory? No? Me either. Those were concepts that Topps Comics used. Let's face it, not many comic book fans liked Kirby's 80s and 90s output, and still many don't like anything he did in the 70s. Why would we care about this Ruby Spears stuff, let alone the general public?

 

Agreed. By the 70's and 80's Kirby was putting out some of the most embarrassing, unintentionally funny the comic world has ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted
hm Maybe I’m misreading your post, but I meant the average Joe reading the NY Times may never have heard of Jack Kirby even if he knows the characters Kirby is responsible for, and that spreading a major creator’s name like Kirby in the public consciousness is a good thing.

 

I agree with what your saying that these things will help tie the comic based movies that are out there the public are seeing with their roots.

I'm just using those words and looking forward at the task ahead for bringing these storyboards to life and in the spirit of Kirby's original ideas.

I've always been curious about what his thoughts are on where the characters he has created have gone in the hands of artists and writers that carried on the storylines after him.

He was frustrated with comic publishers who controlled his creations, that was apparent, but I wonder if it was more than just about money?

 

From what I’ve read, his frustration stemmed from his overall treatment and not from how others handled his characters after he left a book. He didn’t follow comics that way; even if he wanted to he wouldn’t have had time since he was very busy working. It’s my understanding he wasn’t thrilled with Stan’s version of the Surfer and Buscema being given the book, but I put that in the category of overall treatment. SS #18 is pretty interesting. Jack wasn’t happy and left Marvel shortly thereafter, and the Surfer is no happy camper himself in that story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
Yup. But you know what? Even if the chances are slim for these concepts to be produced and/or take off, and even if the Kirby name only has marketability to comic fans, an article like this serves a wonderful purpose in that it gets a major creator’s name in the public eye, which is a great thing. The average Joe might know of the Hulk, Cap, FF etc, but most likely has never given a second thought about who made these characters and comics, or if they have may only know the name Stan Lee.

 

I'm all for promoting Kirby's name and educating people as to who he is. That isn't the motive of these people.

And I'm not really sure it's even marketable to COMIC people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
*paull*

*paull*

Posted
Posted
Yup. But you know what? Even if the chances are slim for these concepts to be produced and/or take off, and even if the Kirby name only has marketability to comic fans, an article like this serves a wonderful purpose in that it gets a major creator’s name in the public eye, which is a great thing. The average Joe might know of the Hulk, Cap, FF etc, but most likely has never given a second thought about who made these characters and comics, or if they have may only know the name Stan Lee.

 

I'm all for promoting Kirby's name and educating people as to who he is. That isn't the motive of these people.

And I'm not really sure it's even marketable to COMIC people.

 

 

On top of that, his 70s, 80s and 90s output is not the stuff I'd want to introduce to people who are unfamiliar with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted
Yup. But you know what? Even if the chances are slim for these concepts to be produced and/or take off, and even if the Kirby name only has marketability to comic fans, an article like this serves a wonderful purpose in that it gets a major creator’s name in the public eye, which is a great thing. The average Joe might know of the Hulk, Cap, FF etc, but most likely has never given a second thought about who made these characters and comics, or if they have may only know the name Stan Lee.

 

I'm all for promoting Kirby's name and educating people as to who he is. That isn't the motive of these people.

And I'm not really sure it's even marketable to COMIC people.

 

 

On top of that, his 70s, 80s and 90s output is not the stuff I'd want to introduce to people who are unfamiliar with him.

 

doh! I'd better learn how to write with more clarity when I'm in a hurry.

 

No, it's not the motive of these people. No, his later output is not a good introduction. My point was that an average person might read that article in the Times and learn that Jack Kirby created or co-created Captain America, the Hulk, FF etc, characters they might have been aware of without knowing who was responsible for their creation.

 

My point was that even if these late period Kirby concepts go nowhere and this article is just a puff piece, this article has the benefit of perhaps enlightening some people as to who Jack Kirby was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing