Lost respect for Stanley Lieber

[Ogami]

1. I disagree that oa was worthless during those years.

 

2. You seem to be well versed on this topic. What do you think Lee's motivation was?

 

 

[Whizzer]

This is pure speculations, but perhaps Stan kept the originals close in case there was a need to publish reprints. Original art inventory had saved Atlas in the past and Marvel made a lot of $ from reprint titles in the sixties (Marvel Tales, Collectors items classics, Fantasy Masterpieces...) and even more in the 70s.

 

Perhaps it was easier/better quality to reprint from the originals, rather than stats or microfiche - or - maybe after Roy came in, better technology existed so that they could take quality pics of the art and didn't need the originals any longer to make reprints?

 

 

That's possible, it was the industry standard to not return artwork.

 

Of course that doesn't explain the stories of pages being given away to kids delivering food to the editorial offices and pages being sent to folks who wrote letters in as well.

 

I don't think anyone, aside from artists who drew them, valued OA from those books very much back in the early-mid 60's.

 

 

But did even the artists value the OA at the time? Whenever I read interviews with the old school creators they generally seemed to view the situation that they were paid a page rate and that the resultant artwork belonged to the publisher.

 

There was no secondary market for many years and at the time it did not occur to most artists that there ever would be one for what was seen as the lowest rung on the artistic ladder.

 

I'm not saying that is how things are viewed now but it seems that it was then, (even by the artists).

 

[Ogami]

Ok, post ...375 is more clear. That time period was much earlier, in the 40s and 50s.

 

Heres my understanding of it.

 

Oa 40s-50s was worthless. Take it off our hands.

Oa 50s-60s- some value to corporation. Hold on to it.

Oa 70s- increasing value to collectors, therefore to artists. Legally grey area for corporation in terms of ownership, therefore ethically and legally tricky.

[Aman619]

Stan moved full time to Los Angeles in the early 70s to promote Marvel movies to Hollywood. So he wasn't running the publishing side anymore to make decisions.

 

And anyone reading Evaniers book as gospel is making a mistake. Evanier was a close friend of the Kirbys and is on a mission to elevate Kirby at Stans expense. I don't think Kirby gets enough expect as Stan for Marvels creation. But I think Kirby himself is more at fault than Stan is for the way it has panned out.

[*paull*]

Explain how Steranko get his art back while Kirby and others could not. Better negotiator?

[Prince Namor]

One thing we may be overlooking here is that maybe the artist would have liked to keep it because.... ya know... they spent creative energy DRAWING it. It would be cool to own a piece of art you did even if it was just for a comic.

But companies made them sign away their rights to it, on the back of their paychecks. And this was the way it worked.

 

Many of the old school guys went through the 'Wertham' era, and felt they were lucky to still be working. They didn't want to rock the boat.

 

The new guys who came in didn't have any of that fear (there was advertising work, and all sorts of other art oriented jobs out there) and just naturally thought' "Why CAN'T I have my art back."

 

It's not like OA was going for crazy prices in the early 70's.

 

I would think their motivation was more personal than anything.

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

Explain how Steranko get his art back while Kirby and others could not. Better negotiator?

 

As my dad always says: "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."

[ComicConnoisseur]

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.

To be fair there is bias with Mark Evanier,and it clearly showed when Marvel won the latest lawsuit against Kirby.

Evanier was totally ripped apart by the Marvel/Disney defense team, and called out for his bias. Go google the documents, and we will see Evanier was not 100 percent accurate about his statements about Stan" the man" Lee.

Evanier has made a good living off of being a Jack Kirby acquaintance these last two decades.

So let`s cut Stan some slack,all Evanier is another Chip Kidd,but the only difference is Kidd didn`t have a Kirby acquaintance to make him important.

[Aman619]

Why compajre him to Chip Kidd?

 

[Duffman_Comics]

This is pure speculations, but perhaps Stan kept the originals close in case there was a need to publish reprints. Original art inventory had saved Atlas in the past and Marvel made a lot of $ from reprint titles in the sixties (Marvel Tales, Collectors items classics, Fantasy Masterpieces...) and even more in the 70s.

 

Perhaps it was easier/better quality to reprint from the originals, rather than stats or microfiche - or - maybe after Roy came in, better technology existed so that they could take quality pics of the art and didn't need the originals any longer to make reprints?

 

 

That's possible, it was the industry standard to not return artwork.

 

Of course that doesn't explain the stories of pages being given away to kids delivering food to the editorial offices and pages being sent to folks who wrote letters in as well.

 

I don't think anyone, aside from artists who drew them, valued OA from those books very much back in the early-mid 60's.

 

 

But did even the artists value the OA at the time? Whenever I read interviews with the old school creators they generally seemed to view the situation that they were paid a page rate and that the resultant artwork belonged to the publisher.

 

There was no secondary market for many years and at the time it did not occur to most artists that there ever would be one for what was seen as the lowest rung on the artistic ladder.

 

I'm not saying that is how things are viewed now but it seems that it was then, (even by the artists).

 

Publishers "back in the day" didn't give a rats about the secondary market for OA as it pertains to collectors.

 

What they were afraid of is that someone would get a hold of the OA for a story or even a whole comic and print/publish it - most likely overseas - and the company that had paid for all that work would get nothing.

 

This explains why individual pages were given away - no harm in that, very hard to assemble a story/comic that way - but when an entire story/comic sits with an individual the original publisher then becomes a little uneasy.

[bronze_rules]

Explain how Steranko get his art back while Kirby and others could not. Better negotiator?

 

As my dad always says: "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."

 

+10 A very practical statement that I agree with 100%.

 

[TupennyConan]

Explain how Steranko get his art back while Kirby and others could not. Better negotiator?

 

As my dad always says: "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."

 

[Park]

Why compajre him to Chip Kidd?

 

Who's Chip Kidd?

[ComicConnoisseur]

Why compajre him to Chip Kidd?

Kidd and Evanier have basically the same talent.

They both write about comic books, but Evanier has the trump card named Kirby that got him the acclaim that Kidd would like.

Also Evanier is known for saying some bad stuff about Jim Shooter to make him look like it was his fault like Stan`s.

[bill977]

i see jack kirbys point somewhat,but maybe he was a little too trusting? maybe he believed a business man (i.e. marvel) would not take advantage. but then you see where superman's creators did not have the foresight of batman's creator,bob kane. now bob kane and his contention that batman was all his creation? there's another tale.

[bluechip]

There is another book on the Lee-Kirby collaboration called "Tales To Astonish" by Ronin Ro. It is more neutral but still sides with Kirby.

And I believe about half of it.

What I do believe is that they would not have reached the heights they reached without each other. Kirby was awesome and had wonderful vision and creativity. Stan had the gift of promotion and the ability to keep Kirby focused as an editor.

 

My two cents.

 

 

That is exactly how I see it too (thumbs u

 

Saying Stan was "great at promotion" appears to be the default position of Stan-slammes when they grudgingly admit Stan did "something" but they wanna slam him in a sideways manner.

 

He was the writer, the editor, plotter, and in many ways the most important architect of the Marvel universe. Saying he was the "promoter" is a way of trying to diminish all of that as if he did nothing a good PR firm couldn't have done.

 

 

 

[shadroch]

I used to stop by Kirbys house when he lived in Williston Park(not Mineola as it says in Wiki) and he certainly appeared to be doing pretty well for himself.I believe lived in that same house from the early 50s until he moved to California, even though his salary supposedly tripled after switching to DC. By the time he went to Dc, I think his kids were all grown and out of the house. His youngest son was about six years older than me and I never met him or heard anything about him so I think he was not living at home.

[bill977]

I used to stop by Kirbys house when he lived in Williston Park(not Mineola as it says in Wiki) and he certainly appeared to be doing pretty well for himself.I believe lived in that same house from the early 50s until he moved to California, even though his salary supposedly tripled after switching to DC. By the time he went to Dc, I think his kids were all grown and out of the house. His youngest son was about six years older than me and I never met him or heard anything about him so I think he was not living at home.

i must admit, until i read the book,men of tomorrow, i never would have realized the resentment it caused in a lot of writer's and artist's live's.after reading that, i can see why so many became bitter toward the comic companies. of course i don't know how much money an artist made,compared to the average working man back in the day

[shadroch]

Stan Lee lived in a fantastic house in Helwitt Harbor, a very rich neighborhood.

Kirby lived in an upper middle class neighborhood, as did both John Romita and Frazzetta. All four lived within a few miles of my house. Bill Ward, whose work I was unfamiliar with at the time lived down the block from my first store in a very ordinary house for several years.

The guy who surprised me was Tom DeFalco, who lived in a pretty bad neighborhood while EIC of Marvel.

[bill977]

Stan Lee lived in a fantastic house in Helwitt Harbor, a very rich neighborhood.

Kirby lived in an upper middle class neighborhood, as did both John Romita and Frazzetta. All four lived within a few miles of my house. Bill Ward, whose work I was unfamiliar with at the time lived down the block from my first store in a very ordinary house for several years.

The guy who surprised me was Tom DeFalco, who lived in a pretty bad neighborhood while EIC of Marvel.

you're talking to a fellow that lives in a little town of 5,000. we are quartered by csx r.r. tracks running north and south,norfolk southern running east and west. so henceforth 25 percent of the population here believes the other 75 percent live on the wrong side of the tracks!