UXM #266 9.8

[Freeballin523]

Price is now $195 shipped. Thread closed after tonight, thanks to everyone for taking a look.

[Bosco685]

Pics are up

 

 

This is a fantastic book!

 

[Freeballin523]

[RockMyAmadeus]

what about Andy Kubert (you know, the actual artist of the book), he wasn't credited in creating Gambit??

 

Kubert was only the cover artist. Mike Collins amd Joe Rubenstein did the interior art.

 

Art Adams is the first published artist for Gambit, but that was a scheduling fluke because they weren't paying attention. It wasn't intended to be his first appearance.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(Fact: Jim Lee is co-creator. )

 

If he's not credited, it doesn't count, regardless of what may have been discussed. There are countless characters who were created "by roundtable", who nevertheless are considered to be created by whomever was credited on the book or, in the lack of credits or credit conflict, whoever did the actual work.

 

Jack Kirby actually did work on Fantasy #15, and without a doubt discussed the character beforehand...does that mean he's Spidey's co-creator? Some people think so, but officially, nope.

 

Although I have zero doubt that Gambit was Jim Lee's idea, the fact is, since he isn't credited, and didn't put pencil to page for EITHER Annual #14 or #266, he cannot be considered a "co-creator" as that term is understood and accepted.

 

Wikipedia page updated...

[sckao]

 

http://www.comicbookblogger.com/comicbookblogger/marvel-charactergambit-jim-lee-co-creation

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's all perfectly fair, but as far as credits go...nada. There is precedence for "XXXX co-created by such and such" in credits, and that didn't happen here.

[sckao]

There is also a precedent for retroactive credits:

 

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/11/22/kibbles-n-bits-112210/

 

BobH

11/22/2010 at 3:24 pm

 

The inner workings of DC’s credits for character creation are part of a fascinating (to some) branch of the Kremlinology that is the study of DC. There seem to be different types of credits, some contractually obligated, some applied more arbitrarily, maybe as a courtesy depending on the whim of whoever the editor happens to be that day.

 

There was even a case last year where DC did a reprint of a comic where the only apparent difference was the creator credit missing from the first printing. Not sure if they would do that if the credit wasn’t contractually obligated.

 

There’s also money involved (either for the comics or for licensing or both), although that seems to independent of the credit (most of the creators of John Constantine see some money, but get no credit line). Apparently even minor characters and concepts used in the movies and TV shows sometimes lead to a payday for the original creators, if they qualify under whatever mystery criteria DC uses.

 

Until recently, the cut-off for credits on characters other than the big three (Superman [both creators], Batman [Kane only, not Finger] and Wonder Woman [Marston only, not Peter. "Charles Moulton" and inconsistently applied until about 1989]) seemed to be about 1971, with Kirby’s many characters and Wein/Wrightson on Swamp Thing being the most notable early examples. That seems to have changed somewhat, I’ve noticed a recent credit for “The Ray Palmer Atom” to Gardner Fox, with no mention of Gil Kane. WEDNESDAY COMICS had credits for Deadman [Drake, but not Infantino] and Metamorpho [both Haney and Fradon] that I don’t recall seeing before.

 

Anyway, for the Huntress, no credit line in any of the comics I have access to, but the 1990-1993 loose-leaf WHO’S WHO series has credit lines for many characters, and it has Levitz, Staton and Layton, so that would seem to be DC’s official line, and probably what should appear in the cartoon.

[RockMyAmadeus]

These retroactive credits were for situations where original credit, in many cases, was never given, or was nebulous, from decades ago (not to mention, DC and not Marvel.) For a 1990 X-Men comic, that's not the case.

 

The bottom line is, his name's not in the book, and he never touched it. If Kirby can do the cover for Fantasy #15, and even prelim character sketches, but doesn't get credit for Spidey, than Lee should not get credit for Gambit.

 

And 100 years from now, people will still wonder why Jim Lee signed a book he didn't touch and whose name doesn't appear anywhere in the book. But hey, Stan Lee does that all the time (which still isn't even a valid comparison, as he created those characters, mostly, in the first place.)

 

Of course, that's just my humble opinion.....

[sckao]

 

Even Chris Claremont credits Jim Lee with the look of Gambit. It is no longer in question.

 

http://reviewfix.com/2009/09/transcript-of-exclusive-interview-with-chris-claremont-part-iii-gambit%E2%80%99s-new-clothes-and-industry-woes/

 

There is what was printed, and there is what many agree to be the "truth." The World Wide Web was not around back then to correct any omissions or oversight.

 

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

I would have thought all this discussion helped sell this book already.

 

[Freeballin523]

Ya you would've thought I posted this in Comics General...weird.