From Stan Lee to Jerry Bails 1963

[dem1138]

From what I heard from a reputable source, Kirby wanted out of Marvel for quite some time but he had burned his bridge with DC from crossing a Sr. Editor awhile back. He felt trapped at Marvel since his skills were only valuable to either company. Apparently once the Editor left DC, Kirby joined them very shortly after.

[Hepcat]

It's called hubris. Jack was a fine artist, but he thought he could/should be the whole show. Well I guess he learned that editors and writers are important too and he wasn't entirely proficient at either.

 

[Juswuh]

I was there when the Fourth World books came out too, and for my money they beat anything else DC or Marvel were doing. They've also worn far better than most stuff of the period. (I don't think anyone now would argue that O'Neil/Adams' GL-GA represents the height of comics' sociological sophistication.)

 

As for damaging Marvel, I'm sure it was part of DC's motive for luring Kirby away, and when no damage ensued, getting him didn't seem like such a smart piece of business regardless of how his DC books sold. I think it was a move made too late - by 1970 there was an established Marvel style and plenty of artists capable of doing Kirby-based storytelling and design. If DC had made it up with Kirby around 1965, offering him good money and the chance to get out from under Stan Lee, things might have been very different. In some alternative timeline the Marvel Age of Comics may have ended in an abrupt crash...

[Hepcat]

If DC had made it up with Kirby around 1965, offering him good money and the chance to get out from under Stan Lee, things might have been very different. In some alternative timeline the Marvel Age of Comics may have ended in an abrupt crash...

 

I don't believe it would have made any difference. Stan Lee was the moving force behind the Marvel Age of comics. Keep in mind that it was Kirby-less Amazing Spider-Man that became Marvel's most popular comic.

 

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

But it is interesting how someone who isn't a salaried employee can invent new characters that become the property of the comic book publisher by virtue of their inclusion in the book.

 

It's as if introducing a character to the Marvel Universe makes it Marvel property. Makes you wonder if by using the image of a US president in a comic book, Marvel might then claim ownership of the presidency. Heck, Marvel could claim ownership of 'New York City" as a character.

 

A very complex issue that interweaves history (established practice) with various philosophies of intellectual property and ownership.

 

 

Creators are paid to create. Just like an engineer working for Ford. If he creates a new idea for a new engine, he doesn't own the rights to that engine. He is simply doing his job. Now, he probably WILL get a nice bonus and a huge promotion, but still, the work being paid for belongs to Ford (or Marvel).

[Zonker]

What comes to my mind reading this thread is that perhaps the whole "created by" controversy is actually quite over-rated. I imagine a lot of this is driven by legal precedents that say creation must = ownership = rights to the big $$$.

 

But I think what we've seen play out in comics is that the money/popularity doesn't necessarily follow the original creation so much as it does the month-in, month-out character development that guys like Stan Lee brought to the table.

 

So yeah, Spider-Man is a great character design by Ditko. But the appeal is the angst-y Peter Parker storyline played out over the years, and picked up by Romita in Ditko's absence without missing a beat.

 

Wolverine as created by Wein/Trimpe/Whomever is one thing... but it was the Claremont/Byrne X-Men treatment that made him what he turned out to be.

 

New Gods... solid concept. But it needed both that Stan Lee wordsmithing polish as well as the cross-title promotion that Marvel was famous for. Darkseid could have rocked the entire DC Universe in 1971, but apart from the Lois Lane comic, he didn't seem to exist outside of Jack's own DC books.