Lost respect for Stanley Lieber

[rodan57]

Stan was the employer and Jack, the employee. They didn't socialize. They weren't friends. There was too much of a power imbalance for this to be case -- even should one have desired it.

 

They did respect each other's talents immensely.

 

They didn't necessarily respect each other -- at certain points in their careers.

 

 

"Creativity" was bought in the 1960s. Jack sold this as part of his talent. Stan only owed Jack a paycheck. Martin Goodman made a lot of verbal promises to Jack but that was Goodman's method of business. Promises kept Jack around longer than they did Ditko.

 

Marvel Comics was part of a larger family business. Stan was privileged in the company because he was family. Goodman was his uncle.

 

As part of the family and "organizer" of Marvel's success, Stan shared in the profits -- including the large profits and promotions that went with Goodman's sale of his publishing companies to Cadence Corporation in 1968. Jack just wasn't a part of that picture.

 

I can easily agree that what happened to Jack was unfair in a moral sense -- but not in a contemporary business sense.

 

Jack deserved more and perhaps in a better world, he would have received it. But it would serve the truth better to look at the role of Martin Goodman than the role of the editor, Stan Lee.

 

 

[bill977]

Stan was the employer and Jack, the employee. They didn't socialize. They weren't friends. There was too much of a power imbalance for this to be case -- even should one have desired it.

 

They did respect each other's talents immensely.

 

They didn't necessarily respect each other -- at certain point in their careers.

 

 

"Creativity" was bought in the 1960s. Jack sold this as part of his talent. Stan only owed Jack a paycheck. Martin Goodman made a lot of verbal promises to Jack but that was Goodman's method of business. Promises kept Jack around longer than they did Ditko.

 

Marvel Comics was part of a larger family business. Stan was privileged in the company because he was family. Goodman was his uncle.

 

As part of the family and "organizer" of Marvel's success, Stan shared in the profits -- including the large profits and promotions that went with Goodman's sale of his publishing companies to Cadence Corporation in 1968. Jack just wasn't a part of that picture.

 

I can easily agree that what happened to Jack was unfair in a moral sense -- but not in a contemporary business sense.

 

Jack deserved more and perhaps in a better world, he would have received it. But it would serve the truth better to look at the role of Martin Goodman than the role of the editor, Stan Lee.

 

so,it could be argued,that the selling of marvel,with perhaps stan receiving a big bonus(if that is the case),would be the seeds of jack's bitterness?

[USArmyParatrooper]

All I can say is I'm amazed how on top of all of the behind the scenes stuff many of you are, right down the every little detail about who said what when and why.

[bill977]

All I can say is I'm amazed how on top of all of the behind the scenes stuff many of you are, right down the every little detail about who said what when and why.

if you ever get a chance,pick up twomorrows alter ego magazine. great history!

[TheShadowKnows]

But is Stan Lee responsible for that?

 

 

Well, Stan was Editor in Chief from 1945 - 1972.

 

Jack was demanding his artwork back starting in the 60's. Under Stan nothing was getting returned to anyone.

 

Roy Thomas took over as EIC in 1972 and had the reins until 1974 and started returning artwork to the creators at that point. Kirby's beef with Marvel was for all his old art, when Stan was Editor in Chief.

 

It wasn't until 1987 that Jack started getting the old artwork back..He received 2100 pages out of almost 9,000 pages. Most of the big books and first appearances were missing, along with the lion's share of everything else. 7,000 pages that were created by Jack when Stan was Editor in Chief never made it back to the Kirby's.

 

 

 

What is your theory on this?Theft from Marvel?

[rodan57]

Stan was the employer and Jack, the employee. They didn't socialize. They weren't friends. There was too much of a power imbalance for this to be case -- even should one have desired it.

 

They did respect each other's talents immensely.

 

They didn't necessarily respect each other -- at certain point in their careers.

 

 

"Creativity" was bought in the 1960s. Jack sold this as part of his talent. Stan only owed Jack a paycheck. Martin Goodman made a lot of verbal promises to Jack but that was Goodman's method of business. Promises kept Jack around longer than they did Ditko.

 

Marvel Comics was part of a larger family business. Stan was privileged in the company because he was family. Goodman was his uncle.

 

As part of the family and "organizer" of Marvel's success, Stan shared in the profits -- including the large profits and promotions that went with Goodman's sale of his publishing companies to Cadence Corporation in 1968. Jack just wasn't a part of that picture.

 

I can easily agree that what happened to Jack was unfair in a moral sense -- but not in a contemporary business sense.

 

Jack deserved more and perhaps in a better world, he would have received it. But it would serve the truth better to look at the role of Martin Goodman than the role of the editor, Stan Lee.

 

so,it could be argued,that the selling of marvel,with perhaps stan receiving a big bonus(if that is the case),would be the seeds of jack's bitterness?

 

I think it came earlier. Stan and Jack did an interview with Nat Freedland of the New York Herald-Tribune in December 1965. In the interview Stan described how the comic books were written. Freedland was captivated by Stan's charm and wrote about Stan's creative force. Jack was described as looking like "the assistant foreman in a girdle factory". A hatchet job had been done on Jack in the article. Jack and Roz blamed Stan for the piece.

 

I am not sure whether it was fair to blame Stan, but Stan certainly did romanticize his creative role -- taking centre stage in the interview -- leaving Jack in the background. Freedland probably wrote it as he saw it.

 

This would very upsetting for Jack -- especially as the mid-sixties was when he began to suffer from the eyesight problems that would especially plague his work later in life. It must have been a period of growing insecurity and frustration.

[GL1]

All I can say is I'm amazed how on top of all of the behind the scenes stuff many of you are, right down the every little detail about who said what when and why.

if you ever get a chance,pick up twomorrows alter ego magazine. great history!

 

I agree Alter Ego is terrific for the comic historian.

[sakaridis]

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.

Mark Evanier has written hundreds of comic books in the last 40 years and some of them were exceptionally good (Crossfire, DNAgents, Blackhawk).

 

He is also contributing jokes and various bits of dialogue for Sergio Aragones' Groo since the beginning of the series.

 

Chip Kidd is, more or less, a graphic designer who dabbles in some writing occasionally.

 

I really fail to see the comparison.

[comix4fun]

But is Stan Lee responsible for that?

 

 

Well, Stan was Editor in Chief from 1945 - 1972.

 

Jack was demanding his artwork back starting in the 60's. Under Stan nothing was getting returned to anyone.

 

Roy Thomas took over as EIC in 1972 and had the reins until 1974 and started returning artwork to the creators at that point. Kirby's beef with Marvel was for all his old art, when Stan was Editor in Chief.

 

It wasn't until 1987 that Jack started getting the old artwork back..He received 2100 pages out of almost 9,000 pages. Most of the big books and first appearances were missing, along with the lion's share of everything else. 7,000 pages that were created by Jack when Stan was Editor in Chief never made it back to the Kirby's.

 

 

 

What is your theory on this?Theft from Marvel?

 

 

There's a ton of theories and a bunch of stories from people inside between the late 60's and the mid 80's. There's the flood of the warehouse story. There's the employee's leaving with stacks of art stories. There are the gave pages to pizza and Chinese food delivery boy stories. The thrown out stories. I like the sent to the printers and never returned stories too. That's a lot of art and a lot of value just "gone".

 

Somehow, someway between 1962 and 1987, 7,000 pages of Kirby's art disappeared and was never returned to Kirby. That's not to say it was destroyed because I am sure there are pages out there that didn't come from Jack or his inkers.

 

 

[Unca Ben]

Didn't Jack buy a nice ranch style home with a pool in Thousand Oaks, Ca, circa 1969?

 

It was for sale for 1.2 mil in 2008.

http://www.comicrelated.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3032

I know this was after the Kirby's owned it, the point being it's a fairly nice piece of property.

 

Certainly he worked his butt off drawing comics, but it seems he made a decent living working for Marvel.

 

As far as the return of his OA, it would have been nice if Jack would have gotten most of it back. That being said...

 

...Imagine a Lead Project Engineer working for HP or Dell or Apple wanting the intellectual properties, that he developed while working for the company, to be returned. If you look at the profits made on a popular product, versus what the Project Engineer was compensated, it could appear to be "unfair".

 

The only engineers I know that became wealthy are those who took a risk and started their own company, or got in on the ground floor of a start-up, and usually worked for a fair amount of stock options in lieu of a substantially lower salary. Most start-ups are not particularly successful.

 

Many industries are work for hire. Comic book companies are no different. Any profit sharing, stock options, or other bonuses need to be negotiated before hand.

[comix4fun]

Didn't Jack buy a nice ranch style home with a pool in Thousand Oaks, Ca, circa 1969?

 

It was for sale for 1.2 mil in 2008.

http://www.comicrelated.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3032

I know this was after the Kirby's owned it, the point being it's a fairly nice piece of property.

 

Certainly he worked his butt off drawing comics, but it seems he made a decent living working for Marvel.

 

As far as the return of his OA, it would have been nice if Jack would have gotten most of it back. That being said...

 

...Imagine a Lead Project Engineer working for HP or Dell or Apple wanting the intellectual properties, that he developed while working for the company, to be returned. If you look at the profits made on a popular product, versus what the Project Engineer was compensated, it could appear to be "unfair".

 

 

For the comparison to be equal, all the other engineers would have to be getting all their IP rights in total and YOU would be the only one NOT getting them.

 

Marvel voluntarily agreed to settle the lawsuit/dispute brought by the Kirby's by returning all of his artwork as he was promised from the beginning of the Marvel Silver Age and never relented on demanded that the promise be kept.

 

This isn't a situation where Kirby decided 20 years later that the art was worth something and he wanted it back. He held that position from day 1 and held it as a condition of the work he was doing.

 

Check out the account online of WHY Marvel held out on Kirby for 15 MORE years when everyone else was getting their art back. They wanted him to sign away additional rights in exchange for the artwork. The same artwork he was supposed to get back anyway.

[Ogami]

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.

Mark Evanier has written hundreds of comic books in the last 40 years and some of them were exceptionally good (Crossfire, DNAgents, Blackhawk).

 

He is also contributing jokes and various bits of dialogue for Sergio Aragones' Groo since the beginning of the series.

 

Chip Kidd is, more or less, a graphic designer who dabbles in some writing occasionally.

 

I really fail to see the comparison.

 

A correction please. Evainer is to Aragones as Kirby is to Lee. I'm just now realizing this for the first time as I type this out.

 

Aragones created and draws all the art for Groo the Wanderer, from its first issue to its last, but Mark Evainer has penned all of the writing, if I'm not mistaken. There may be one or two issues that he did not, but he has been in on the ground floor since day one. The story goes, that Aragones created the character, but wasn't confident of his English writing skills to tackle writing the book as well. He owns the character and guides the book, but Evainer plotted it and came up with wonderful stories, issue after issue, dealing with complex social issues told as parodies. I'm not a big Evainer fan, but credit where credit is due- he did much more than "contribute jokes and bits of dialogue".

 

Man, this is trippy. I wonder if Evainer compares himself to Kirby, in this fashion. I think not. He and Aragones appear to have a wonderful relationship. Subconsciously? Hrm. This sort of discussion really interests me.

 

I have loved this thread immensely.

[Unca Ben]

This is a good thread, isn't it?

[Ogami]

This is a good thread, isn't it?

 

Yes.

 

Yes, it is.

 

Who owns all the rights to Groo? Aragones.

 

Who created Groo? Aragones and Evainer, no question about it.

 

 

 

I do find it interesting that modern comics are listed as being created by the writer and artist, knowing full well most of these had to have sprung from the mind of the writer, mostly fully formed.

[shadroch]

Didn't Jack buy a nice ranch style home with a pool in Thousand Oaks, Ca, circa 1969?

 

It was for sale for 1.2 mil in 2008.

http://www.comicrelated.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3032

I know this was after the Kirby's owned it, the point being it's a fairly nice piece of property.

 

Certainly he worked his butt off drawing comics, but it seems he made a decent living working for Marvel.

 

As far as the return of his OA, it would have been nice if Jack would have gotten most of it back. That being said...

 

...Imagine a Lead Project Engineer working for HP or Dell or Apple wanting the intellectual properties, that he developed while working for the company, to be returned. If you look at the profits made on a popular product, versus what the Project Engineer was compensated, it could appear to be "unfair".

 

The only engineers I know that became wealthy are those who took a risk and started their own company, or got in on the ground floor of a start-up, and usually worked for a fair amount of stock options in lieu of a substantially lower salary. Most start-ups are not particularly successful.

 

Many industries are work for hire. Comic book companies are no different. Any profit sharing, stock options, or other bonuses need to be negotiated before hand.

 

I'm not sure when he moved, but he was still on Long Island in the early 1970s. Stan Lee moved out to Cali before Jack, if I recall correctly.

Now that I've thought about it, I think Stan moved into Manhattan for a few years before he headed west. That was around 1976, as my freshman year in college (1977) I met a kid who grew up next door to Stan in Hewlitt Harbor, and found out he had recently moved..

[bill977]

so........... 7,000 pcs. of artwork left the warehouse over a period of years? sounds like trust-worthy warehouse caretakers to me. seems like someone had to know what was going on

[Whizzer]

All I can say is I'm amazed how on top of all of the behind the scenes stuff many of you are, right down the every little detail about who said what when and why.

 

Honestly, I often prefer reading about the history of the comic book industry than reading the comics themselves. As has been said, Alter Ego is an incredibly informative and entertaining read issue after issue. Books like; Men of Tomorrow (Gerard Jones) are also very worth reading.

 

If you are interested in this aspect of the hobby, I recommend that you begin delving into the resources mentioned above and elsewhere in this thread and I'm sure you will become hooked.

 

 

 

 

[shadroch]

so........... 7,000 pcs. of artwork left the warehouse over a period of years? sounds like trust-worthy warehouse caretakers to me. seems like someone had to know what was going on

 

 

Thousands of pages were lost in the warehouse flood, and I suspect many were lost everytime Marvel moved both their office and their warehouse. They just were not considered as things of value for many many years. Keep in mind that Disney, in this same time period, simply threw away tens of thousands of their animation cellls and it wasn't until they got tired of grown men searching thru their trash that they became aware of any possible value being attached to them.

I forget which one, but one of the Hanna -Barbara duo is said to have been shocked when he attended a pop culture convention and saw his cells selling for upwards of $25 each in the early 1970s.

[Logan510]

I can't recall where I read this, but supposedly when they were getting ready to move offices in the 1980's, several pages were left in the office over a weekend and apparently a recently fired employee stole quite a bit of OA.