Lost respect for Stanley Lieber

[bluechip]

So, I just finished reading an awesome book titled Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. Anyone read it? I thought it was an awesome bio of the man, but I can't help but feel quite a bit of anger towards Stan Lee. I know, believe nothing of what you hear/read and half of what you see. But, if even a small portion of it is true, how crappy of Lee to do the things to Kirby that he did. Low pay is one thing, but stealing credit for characters and allowing the press to say that Lee was the sole creator and writer for all the awesome 60's Marvel characters is pretty shi**y. I read in one chapter that Stan took the Silver Surfer, and without consulting Kirby, ran his own series with Buscema drawing. Lee completely changed the origin of a character that Kirby created.

I met the man many years ago and he was so genuine and down to earth. He didn't know me from Adam and took time to chat with me about comics and various characters and even let me grab a few pics with him. Kinda reminds me of the ol' saying "nice guys finish last".

Sorry, just venting.

 

Kirby was a genius. But Mark, while a very bright guy, is not even close to impartial on this matter.

 

Stan never would've said that Kirby did absolutey nothing. Yet Kirby went as far as to say that. (And I don't mean virtually nothing. Kirby said in the heat of a moment more than once that Stan did literally nothing)

 

That statement alone speaks volumes as to how Kirby was capable of interpreting things.

 

He was a genius. But if he'd created all of that on his own it would never have reached the heights of what it did because of Stan's part in it.

 

Silver Surfer is a great example because Kirby-camp Stan-haters will say on the one hand that Kirby must be given credit for Spider-man because he came up with a slightly similar but wildly different character prior to that.

 

Yet, those same fans will say Kirby created Silver Surfer 100% because he drew a character without prior input from Stan. But the character he drew was simply a herald, like one of several that appeared in the same story, did some damage and then disappeared. It is very likely that if Stan hadn't glommed onto the character and developed him into the most self-sacrificing, introspective character of the 60s, the unnamed character would be nothing today but a footnote in the galactus story.

 

So, to insist on credit for Spider-man for any hint of congtribution from Kirby while completely disregarding the very large input Stan had into the Silver Surfer is just not consistent.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

 

Marvel in the 60s was a TEAM project. Kirby was enormously responsible for it, more so than any other artist. But there were other great projects as well, with other artists, and among those, the most common demoninator was also Stan's involvement.

 

So enough with the hating. If you think Kirby deserves more love, then shower him with more love. Instead of trying to balance it out somehow by hating on Lee.

 

 

[seanfingh]

So, I just finished reading an awesome book titled Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. Anyone read it? I thought it was an awesome bio of the man, but I can't help but feel quite a bit of anger towards Stan Lee. I know, believe nothing of what you hear/read and half of what you see. But, if even a small portion of it is true, how crappy of Lee to do the things to Kirby that he did. Low pay is one thing, but stealing credit for characters and allowing the press to say that Lee was the sole creator and writer for all the awesome 60's Marvel characters is pretty shi**y. I read in one chapter that Stan took the Silver Surfer, and without consulting Kirby, ran his own series with Buscema drawing. Lee completely changed the origin of a character that Kirby created.

I met the man many years ago and he was so genuine and down to earth. He didn't know me from Adam and took time to chat with me about comics and various characters and even let me grab a few pics with him. Kinda reminds me of the ol' saying "nice guys finish last".

Sorry, just venting.

 

Kirby was a genius. But Mark, while a very bright guy, is not even close to impartial on this matter.

 

Stan never would've said that Kirby did absolutey nothing. Yet Kirby went as far as to say that. (And I don't mean virtually nothing. Kirby said in the heat of a moment more than once that Stan did literally nothing)

 

That statement alone speaks volumes as to how Kirby was capable of interpreting things.

 

He was a genius. But if he'd created all of that on his own it would never have reached the heights of what it did because of Stan's part in it.

 

Silver Surfer is a great example because Kirby-camp Stan-haters will say on the one hand that Kirby must be given credit for Spider-man because he came up with a slightly similar but wildly different character prior to that.

 

Yet, those same fans will say Kirby created Silver Surfer 100% because he drew a character without prior input from Stan. But the character he drew was simply a herald, like one of several that appeared in the same story, did some damage and then disappeared. It is very likely that if Stan hadn't glommed onto the character and developed him into the most self-sacrificing, introspective character of the 60s, the unnamed character would be nothing today but a footnote in the galactus story.

 

So, to insist on credit for Spider-man for any hint of congtribution from Kirby while completely disregarding the very large input Stan had into the Silver Surfer is just not consistent.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

 

Marvel in the 60s was a TEAM project. Kirby was enormously responsible for it, more so than any other artist. But there were other great projects as well, with other artists, and among those, the most common demoninator was also Stan's involvement.

 

So enough with the hating. If you think Kirby deserves more love, then shower him with more love. Instead of trying to balance it out somehow by hating on Lee.

 

 

Spectacular post.

[Ogami]

I'm gonna answer my own trivia question. It was Ditko that gave us the name, "Marvel Comics".

 

You know who gave him the credit for it?

 

The Man.

 

 

 

 

 

Also want to echo, great post just before this one.

 

 

 

(stupid iPad making it nigh impossible to check who wrote it while writing this one)

[Calidream'n]

Well, I would really like to know the truth then about exactly why Kirby left Marvel. Was it pay/contract negotiations that fell through? It's stated in the book endlessly that Kirby was never paid enough and struggled to provide for his wife and children. Could Stan have done more to keep him on or did he have no input in that (even as editor-in-chief)?

I also lament on the fact that all of these characters (both individually created and those created as a team) have subsequently gone on to make huge sums of money in both merchandise and movies. Does anyone know if Kirby's family got anything from the proceeds of the new Cap movie?

[archiefan]

Well, I would really like to know the truth then about exactly why Kirby left Marvel. Was it pay/contract negotiations that fell through? It's stated in the book endlessly that Kirby was never paid enough and struggled to provide for his wife and children. Could Stan have done more to keep him on or did he have no input in that (even as editor-in-chief)?

I also lament on the fact that all of these characters (both individually created and those created as a team) have subsequently gone on to make huge sums of money in both merchandise and movies. Does anyone know if Kirby's family got anything from the proceeds of the new Cap movie?

 

I heard it had something to do with Marvel keeping Kirby's artwork. Kirby got wind of what his art was selling for between collectors and wanted it back - Marvel said no.

[TupennyConan]

A balanced approach to this issue as suggested by bluechip doesn't conform to CG's outrage model.

[seanfingh]

A balanced approach to this issue as suggested by bluechip doesn't conform to CG's outrage model.

 

F U lover of czarist Russia

[goldust40]

Well, I would really like to know the truth then about exactly why Kirby left Marvel. Was it pay/contract negotiations that fell through? It's stated in the book endlessly that Kirby was never paid enough and struggled to provide for his wife and children. Could Stan have done more to keep him on or did he have no input in that (even as editor-in-chief)?

I also lament on the fact that all of these characters (both individually created and those created as a team) have subsequently gone on to make huge sums of money in both merchandise and movies. Does anyone know if Kirby's family got anything from the proceeds of the new Cap movie?

 

The reason why Kirby left Marvel at the end of the 1960s was that he felt he had done enough with the titles he had been working on for nearly all of that decade, and wanted to work on other projects that he would have sole control over. DC also offered him a contract that gave him three times the salary he had been earning at Marvel and complete creative autonomy over whatever project or universe he had in mind.

 

And he had had enough of Lee by this point. It was an unusual collaboration for one so spectacularly successful and prolific - they were at odds with each other for most of the time, largely made their contributions to an issue without much interaction, and never had much mutual respect.

 

Which explains why there are no photos of the two of them together in existence.

[Logan510]

From what I've read, Stan wanted to make Kirby a partner on staff and give him the title Art Director, or something along those lines but apparently Kirby wasn't interested in a staff position. DC gave him a lot of control and let him write his own material. That is what was the key selling point to my understanding.

 

 

Edit: Goldust beat me to it.

[TupennyConan]

A balanced approach to this issue as suggested by bluechip doesn't conform to CG's outrage model.

 

F U lover of czarist Russia

 

White Russians are tasty

[Mr.Illmannered]

So, I just finished reading an awesome book titled Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. Anyone read it? I thought it was an awesome bio of the man, but I can't help but feel quite a bit of anger towards Stan Lee. I know, believe nothing of what you hear/read and half of what you see. But, if even a small portion of it is true, how crappy of Lee to do the things to Kirby that he did. Low pay is one thing, but stealing credit for characters and allowing the press to say that Lee was the sole creator and writer for all the awesome 60's Marvel characters is pretty shi**y. I read in one chapter that Stan took the Silver Surfer, and without consulting Kirby, ran his own series with Buscema drawing. Lee completely changed the origin of a character that Kirby created.

I met the man many years ago and he was so genuine and down to earth. He didn't know me from Adam and took time to chat with me about comics and various characters and even let me grab a few pics with him. Kinda reminds me of the ol' saying "nice guys finish last".

Sorry, just venting.

 

Kirby was a genius. But Mark, while a very bright guy, is not even close to impartial on this matter.

 

Stan never would've said that Kirby did absolutey nothing. Yet Kirby went as far as to say that. (And I don't mean virtually nothing. Kirby said in the heat of a moment more than once that Stan did literally nothing)

 

That statement alone speaks volumes as to how Kirby was capable of interpreting things.

 

He was a genius. But if he'd created all of that on his own it would never have reached the heights of what it did because of Stan's part in it.

 

Silver Surfer is a great example because Kirby-camp Stan-haters will say on the one hand that Kirby must be given credit for Spider-man because he came up with a slightly similar but wildly different character prior to that.

 

Yet, those same fans will say Kirby created Silver Surfer 100% because he drew a character without prior input from Stan. But the character he drew was simply a herald, like one of several that appeared in the same story, did some damage and then disappeared. It is very likely that if Stan hadn't glommed onto the character and developed him into the most self-sacrificing, introspective character of the 60s, the unnamed character would be nothing today but a footnote in the galactus story.

 

So, to insist on credit for Spider-man for any hint of congtribution from Kirby while completely disregarding the very large input Stan had into the Silver Surfer is just not consistent.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

 

Marvel in the 60s was a TEAM project. Kirby was enormously responsible for it, more so than any other artist. But there were other great projects as well, with other artists, and among those, the most common demoninator was also Stan's involvement.

 

So enough with the hating. If you think Kirby deserves more love, then shower him with more love. Instead of trying to balance it out somehow by hating on Lee.

 

 

Spectacular post.

 

I second that!

[comix4fun]

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

.

 

 

 

 

 

The post was great. I agree...however I would not view Stan giving all the credit to Jack on the Surfer's design as some gigantic magnanimous gesture.

 

This is the design...or lack of it, that we are talking about.

 

 

 

 

One solid color, no eyes, no costume, no nothing. HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TOES!!!! I can't imagine one guy taking credit for a design here, much less 2 guys finding a way to share credit.

 

"I gave him the blank Little Orphan Annie eyes"..."Well I gave him the Ken doll gender neutral junk area."

[TupennyConan]

Oh, you mean the Silver Oscar?

[comix4fun]

Oh, you mean the Silver Oscar?

 

 

They used to give those out for second place, right?

[TupennyConan]

Oh, you mean the Silver Oscar?

 

 

They used to give those out for second place, right?

 

 

The earliest FF 48 - 50 Surfer designs were superior in their simplicity to later designs as the little lines denoting cosmic trunks weren't included.

 

Oscar was nude.

[*paull*]

So, I just finished reading an awesome book titled Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. Anyone read it? I thought it was an awesome bio of the man, but I can't help but feel quite a bit of anger towards Stan Lee. I know, believe nothing of what you hear/read and half of what you see. But, if even a small portion of it is true, how crappy of Lee to do the things to Kirby that he did. Low pay is one thing, but stealing credit for characters and allowing the press to say that Lee was the sole creator and writer for all the awesome 60's Marvel characters is pretty shi**y. I read in one chapter that Stan took the Silver Surfer, and without consulting Kirby, ran his own series with Buscema drawing. Lee completely changed the origin of a character that Kirby created.

I met the man many years ago and he was so genuine and down to earth. He didn't know me from Adam and took time to chat with me about comics and various characters and even let me grab a few pics with him. Kinda reminds me of the ol' saying "nice guys finish last".

Sorry, just venting.

 

Kirby was a genius. But Mark, while a very bright guy, is not even close to impartial on this matter.

 

Stan never would've said that Kirby did absolutey nothing. Yet Kirby went as far as to say that. (And I don't mean virtually nothing. Kirby said in the heat of a moment more than once that Stan did literally nothing)

 

That statement alone speaks volumes as to how Kirby was capable of interpreting things.

 

He was a genius. But if he'd created all of that on his own it would never have reached the heights of what it did because of Stan's part in it.

 

Silver Surfer is a great example because Kirby-camp Stan-haters will say on the one hand that Kirby must be given credit for Spider-man because he came up with a slightly similar but wildly different character prior to that.

 

Yet, those same fans will say Kirby created Silver Surfer 100% because he drew a character without prior input from Stan. But the character he drew was simply a herald, like one of several that appeared in the same story, did some damage and then disappeared. It is very likely that if Stan hadn't glommed onto the character and developed him into the most self-sacrificing, introspective character of the 60s, the unnamed character would be nothing today but a footnote in the galactus story.

 

So, to insist on credit for Spider-man for any hint of congtribution from Kirby while completely disregarding the very large input Stan had into the Silver Surfer is just not consistent.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

 

Marvel in the 60s was a TEAM project. Kirby was enormously responsible for it, more so than any other artist. But there were other great projects as well, with other artists, and among those, the most common demoninator was also Stan's involvement.

 

So enough with the hating. If you think Kirby deserves more love, then shower him with more love. Instead of trying to balance it out somehow by hating on Lee.

 

 

 

Nice work! (However, it's too thoughtful and well-written for Comics General.)

[mackenzie999]

This is the design...or lack of it, that we are talking about.

 

 

Don't mistake simplicity for a lack of design, it takes skill and good judgment to do simple successfully. Excessive ornament would detract from SS's essential purity (granted, said purity was probably not planned initially, but still...)

[Ares]

A balanced approach to this issue as suggested by bluechip doesn't conform to CG's outrage model.

 

F U lover of czarist Russia

 

White Russians are tasty

My Favorite Drink

[comix4fun]

This is the design...or lack of it, that we are talking about.

 

 

Don't mistake simplicity for a lack of design, it takes skill and good judgment to do simple successfully. Excessive ornament would detract from SS's essential purity (granted, said purity was probably not planned initially, but still...)

 

 

Just pointing out a possible reason that credit was not sought or possible to be split.

[topofthetotem]

So, I just finished reading an awesome book titled Kirby King of Comics by Mark Evanier. Anyone read it? I thought it was an awesome bio of the man, but I can't help but feel quite a bit of anger towards Stan Lee. I know, believe nothing of what you hear/read and half of what you see. But, if even a small portion of it is true, how crappy of Lee to do the things to Kirby that he did. Low pay is one thing, but stealing credit for characters and allowing the press to say that Lee was the sole creator and writer for all the awesome 60's Marvel characters is pretty shi**y. I read in one chapter that Stan took the Silver Surfer, and without consulting Kirby, ran his own series with Buscema drawing. Lee completely changed the origin of a character that Kirby created.

I met the man many years ago and he was so genuine and down to earth. He didn't know me from Adam and took time to chat with me about comics and various characters and even let me grab a few pics with him. Kinda reminds me of the ol' saying "nice guys finish last".

Sorry, just venting.

 

Kirby was a genius. But Mark, while a very bright guy, is not even close to impartial on this matter.

 

Stan never would've said that Kirby did absolutey nothing. Yet Kirby went as far as to say that. (And I don't mean virtually nothing. Kirby said in the heat of a moment more than once that Stan did literally nothing)

 

That statement alone speaks volumes as to how Kirby was capable of interpreting things.

 

He was a genius. But if he'd created all of that on his own it would never have reached the heights of what it did because of Stan's part in it.

 

Silver Surfer is a great example because Kirby-camp Stan-haters will say on the one hand that Kirby must be given credit for Spider-man because he came up with a slightly similar but wildly different character prior to that.

 

Yet, those same fans will say Kirby created Silver Surfer 100% because he drew a character without prior input from Stan. But the character he drew was simply a herald, like one of several that appeared in the same story, did some damage and then disappeared. It is very likely that if Stan hadn't glommed onto the character and developed him into the most self-sacrificing, introspective character of the 60s, the unnamed character would be nothing today but a footnote in the galactus story.

 

So, to insist on credit for Spider-man for any hint of congtribution from Kirby while completely disregarding the very large input Stan had into the Silver Surfer is just not consistent.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Kirby drew the character without any initial input from Stan -- we know that from Stan himself! If anyone outside the hardcore Stan haters would bew like to give Kirby 100% credit for the surfer despite Stan's input, it would be Stan himself.

 

Marvel in the 60s was a TEAM project. Kirby was enormously responsible for it, more so than any other artist. But there were other great projects as well, with other artists, and among those, the most common demoninator was also Stan's involvement.

 

So enough with the hating. If you think Kirby deserves more love, then shower him with more love. Instead of trying to balance it out somehow by hating on Lee.

 

 

 

Nice work! (However, it's too thoughtful and well-written for Comics General.)

 

I agree! it belongs in the water cooler.