Opinions on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Creative Efforts

[Wayne-Tec]

My take on the situation is this...

 

I believe Stan was probably the one who dreamt up the idea and initial concept of a new character. His idea may have not been refined, it may have been at times distant from the final product, but the idea itself was probably often his. Martin Goodman may have asked him to create a team of superheroes, and when reading the Fantastic Four, the characters' human, flawed nature had Lee written all over it. Kirby's influence was likely strong, borrowing ideas from the Challengers of the Unknown and honing the finished product into the Fantastic Four we know today. I think this is similar to how Bill Finger refined Bob Kane's Batman, and the way Steve Ditko refined Spider-Man.

 

The point of contention may have arisen from several factors. The first being, Lee's job was probably a lot easier than Kirby's. If the extent of Stan's involvement was daydreaming an idea for a character, giving Kirby a rough idea for the plot, waiting for Kirby to illustrate the book and bring it to life, then going in at the last minute and filling in the word balloons -- I could see Kirby viewing that as the easier job of the two. Artists were pushed hard to meet deadlines, and it couldn't have been easy to turn in page after page, for book after book as you're racing against the clock.

 

To Stan's credit, he went out of his way to showcase Marvel's artists in the book's credits. Had Stan never spoken a word about who was responsible for what, all you had to do was read the books themselves to know that Kirby was at least responsible for the artwork, which itself is 50% or more of the work. Think back to the M.M.M.S. record, the credits at the beginning of each comic -- these artists were showcased better than many had ever been.

 

How the public reacts to what's delivered cannot all fall on Stan. It was his job to promote and market the Marvel brand. He was naturally charismatic, perfect for radio and television -- where Kirby was a bit rough around the edges.

 

A possible issue could have come from the fact that the books read "-script by Stan Lee, Art by Jack Kirby". Kirby knew he was responsible for a lot of the plotting, so he could have resented the fact that his work on that front was not mentioned in the credits. He saw Stan receiving 50% of more worth of credit for what was, in all fairness, probably not 50% worth of the work.

 

I equate Stan's creative roll at Marvel to that of a Rock band's lead singer. The guitarist, bassist and drummer may have to often work harder, but the lead singer is usually the one in the spotlight absorbing most of the attention.

 

When Lee has explained his understanding of Ditko's opinion (and he goes out of his way to add the disclaimer in fear of him mis-quoting Ditko), he has said that Steve felt that the one who brings the character to life is the creator and that without his work, Stan just had an idea which was nothing solid. Stan believes that the one who dreams up the idea is the "father" so to speak, and I understand that point of view as well.

 

The ironic thing is that as I grew up (I'm now 25), I was never exposed to Kirby or Ditko not receiving the proper credit. In fact, it was very much the opposite. I would often watch Stan's interview with Kevin Smith on DVD and Stan was very humble. He painted himself as lazy, forgetful and lucky. For all of the resentment Stan seems to get, it was actually Stan who got me excited about Kirby and Ditko. He would shower them with so much praise, he would speak so highly of them and he would detail how amazing their work was that it encouraged me to open up my Marvel Masterworks and take the time to more closely appreciate all of the great things they did.

 

So when I read the extremes Kirby went to in his interview, it disappointed me. I have not personally read anything from Stan where he attempted to discredit or shortchange his artists of their just due. It may very well be out there, but I've grown up in a generation where my exposure to Stan's interviews highlighted Kirby and Ditko as brilliant co-creators who led the characters' to greater success than Stan could have ever dreamed, as he admits that the characters would not have been nearly as successful without their contributions.

 

If that wasn't the case in the past, I'd be interested to see it in writing. But as the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. If the extremes of Kirby's interview were in response to something Stan had previously said or done, it does the fans no favors if Kirby was blatantly dishonest by giving Stan 0% of the credit, and maybe even taking some Spider-Man creation credit away from Ditko in the process.

 

The Lee/Kirby partnership may not have been 50/50. But even if it was 80/20 or 90/10 in favor of Kirby. But to give Stan 0% of the credit, to be dishonest about what really happened and to claim 100% credit for himself does not even the score -- it just leaves the fans out in the cold.

 

Both Lee and Kirby deserve however much credit they deserve for however much they really contributed. I don't believe that we'd have a Marvel Universe to enjoy today if it wasn't for both of their efforts.

 

But in all fairness, regardless of the popular urge to knock Stan...his letters and his interviews seem to be far more fair and far more likely to be accurate than what Kirby said in his 1990 interview.

[PowderedH2O]

By the time this interview happened, Kirby was pretty darn bitter about Lee taking and/or being given the credit for everything, and he overcompensated by basically doing the exact same thing. Reading Kirby and Ditko's output from the 1970's is basically all the proof you need of Lee's creative contributions..

 

agreed

 

Double agreed.

 

I've gotta disagree. How many legendary creators of a great character or group of characters follow up their success with equal greatness? Not many. Do you think JK Rowling will have a second venture as successful as Harry Potter? Edgar Rice Burroughs had some success with John Carter, but it was no Tarzan by any stretch. So, lets just say for argument's sake that Jack Kirby was telling the 100% truth (which may or may not be the case). Then, are we to say "Well, Jack created Captain America, a bunch of stuff at DC in the 40's, FF, Spidey, and everything in the early Marvel Universe, but since his stuff in the 70's like Mister Miracle, New Gods, and Eternals wasn's as successful, he really wasn't so great after all"? Of course not. One person only has so much creative juice in them.

 

That all being said, I think it was probably more like an 80/20 collaboration with Lee and he just had some sour grapes over the praise and money that Lee got for doing 20% of the work.

[rjpb]

this is Alan Moore's opinion......

 

 

It is my understanding that at least part of that, where Alan Moore says that Stan Lee claims to have been involved with the creation of Captain America (when Stan would have been a pre-teen at the time) in Son of Origins or somesuch, is completely wrong, that such a statement has never been made in print.

 

Stan was already working at Timely when Cap #1 was printed, and his earliest writing is believed to be in #3. I'm guessing Moore is confusing some Stan Lee reminiscence of being at Timely when when Cap was created with a claim to have been involved. Or maybe he's just making stuff up - which would be unsurprising.

[Wayne-Tec]

this is Alan Moore's opinion......

 

 

It is my understanding that at least part of that, where Alan Moore says that Stan Lee claims to have been involved with the creation of Captain America (when Stan would have been a pre-teen at the time) in Son of Origins or somesuch, is completely wrong, that such a statement has never been made in print.

 

Stan was already working at Timely when Cap #1 was printed, and his earliest writing is believed to be in #3. I'm guessing Moore is confusing some Stan Lee reminiscence of being at Timely when when Cap was created with a claim to have been involved. Or maybe he's just making stuff up - which would be unsurprising.

 

All we need to settle this is a scan from the book in question. Can anyone provide a scan of anything in writing where Stan took credit for creating Captain America? If Moore's story is true, it shouldn't be difficult to find.

[rjpb]

Whatever Lee's contribution on the creation of an individual character, or the writing on a particular story, Stan's promotion and stewardship of the idea of an interlocking superhero universe with character growth, relationship issues, and alter egos that actually have a personality is as much why the SA of Marvel comics is so fondly remembered as the artistic and creative efforts of Kirby or anyone else. Without Kirby the Marvel Universe would not have been the same, and certainly poorer for his absence. Without Stan Lee there would have been no Marvel Universe.

[bluechip]

Great thread to start up some dialogue.

 

I am also a huge Kirby fan. The man was an extremely talented and prolific artist but I don't believe the bluster. There seems to have been several rifts between Lee and Kirby and the bullpen guys as well as a credit grab on who created which character and who was the true genius behind it all. My best guess is they had a great team of talented people and they each added something unique to create these iconic characters. Kirby, Ditko...were talented artists with great imaginations while Stan was a PT Barnum like visionary who developed a great bullpen system that allowed talented people to colaborate on emotionally powerful story lines and solid art.

 

As much as I respect Kirby, you could see how his work suffered when he did everything himself and did not have the strong teamwork of the Marvel way. As visually stunning as the 4th World was, it suffered in plot and dialogue and never gained the long term traction of FF, Thor, Spidey or any of the other Marvel icons.

 

The "PT Barnum" analogy is pushed hard, hard, hard by the Kirby absolutists -- and by nobody else -- as a way of "giving Stan his due" without giving him any due at all.

 

The analogy would be accurate if Barnum had been a showman and organizer and had ALSO presided over a creative team that created, wrote and drew (or produced) fictional characters that went on to succeed in many mediums, with Barnum acting as head writer/show runner/whatever-creative-equivalent-you-want-to-apply

 

Which Barnum didn't. and wasn't

 

 

[Marvel Zombie]

 

Having just read Kirby's 'Fourth world' epic, I have little doubt that the raw creative force that to a very large extend brought the marvel silver age revolution about stems from Kirby. Kirby, the king.

 

 

 

 

[Lonzilla]

Ditko did create the Spider-Man costume and had even said he was worried that Stan wouldn't like the fact that it was a full mask covering his entire face. Ditko shared a studio with fetish artist Eric Stanton who said that he and Ditko would bounce ideas off each other when they were working on projects. The webshooters were Stanton's idea, though he never tried to take any credit or make a buck from it, which is what I get from Kirby's sour grapes interviews.

Did Kirby create the look of many of the characters? Yes. Did he write the scripts? No.

Reading his 70's DC shlock, Marvel never would've gotten off the ground if Kirby handled the writing

 

[Lonzilla]

My take on the situation is this...

 

I equate Stan's creative roll at Marvel to that of a Rock band's lead singer. The guitarist, bassist and drummer may have to often work harder, but the lead singer is usually the one in the spotlight absorbing most of the attention.

 

I've been singing in punk bands for 20 years, writing all of the lyrics, organizing gigs and practices and making sure the rest of the band is where they're supposed to be. Believe me it's like being a full time babysitter. Nobody in music is lazier than drummers and bassists

[rodan57]

Whatever credit Stan Lee took decades ago that he didn't deserve and/or however much credit others gave Lee that he didn't deserve decades ago...Stan has very much changed his tone for many, many years now.

 

 

"It was a total collaborative affair and sometimes I feel a little guilty (when people say) Stan did this, Stan did that. I did it, but I did it with them and they really deserve as much credit as I can ever get." -Stan Lee

 

Compare that to Kirby's depiction of Stan's contributions:

 

"Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? I’m essentially something else: I’m a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying." -Jack Kirby

 

Comparing Lee at his most contrite with Kirby at his most bombastic is probably not a truly constructive advancement of the argument.

[MatterEaterLad]

I've read Tales to Astonish by Ronin Ro, Marvel Comics the Untold Story, and Stan's bubblegum biography...whatever it was called.

 

Together they vector in on a pretty clear picture of Stan throwing out ideas and Jack grinding out pages as an incredibly talented workhorse and decent storyteller who never spoke up for himself. He was angry and bitter in the end and was lashing out, but Stan didn't go out of his way to change people's grandiose opinions of his own hand in the creation of the Marvel universe.

 

 

[rodan57]

A possible issue could have come from the fact that the books read "-script by Stan Lee, Art by Jack Kirby". Kirby knew he was responsible for a lot of the plotting, so he could have resented the fact that his work on that front was not mentioned in the credits. He saw Stan receiving 50% of more worth of credit for what was, in all fairness, probably not 50% worth of the work.

 

I think it was more that Lee was paid as editor and as writer whereas Kirby plotted, created new characters, new directions and was paid only as the artist.

[Wayne-Tec]

Whatever credit Stan Lee took decades ago that he didn't deserve and/or however much credit others gave Lee that he didn't deserve decades ago...Stan has very much changed his tone for many, many years now.

 

 

"It was a total collaborative affair and sometimes I feel a little guilty (when people say) Stan did this, Stan did that. I did it, but I did it with them and they really deserve as much credit as I can ever get." -Stan Lee

 

Compare that to Kirby's depiction of Stan's contributions:

 

"Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? I’m essentially something else: I’m a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying." -Jack Kirby

 

Comparing Lee at his most contrite with Kirby at his most bombastic is probably not a truly constructive advancement of the argument.

 

That is a fair point, but I've never read or seen anything to show that Stan speaking of Jack the way Jack spoke of Stan. Not only has Stan showered Kirby with praise, not only had he given Jack 90% of the credit at times, but he has used his celebrity as a platform to promote Jack's great work.

 

As I've said, if it weren't for Stan's frequent, excessive praise of Kirby's work, I don't know if I would have developed an appreciation for Kirby as early on as I did.

 

Stan has gone on record countless times to express that his memory isn't very good, but I've never seen Stan go out of his way to claim credit that didn't belong to him. Jack said that Stan did nothing, that Stan contributed nothing. That seems blatantly dishonest, and I have never seen evidence of Stan reciprocating that dishonesty. No matter how great of an artist, no matter how great of a visionary Jack was, it doesn't excuse dishonesty.

 

If there are any videos, any interviews or anything in writing that shows Stan doing anything in the same breath as what Jack did in his 1990 interview, I would be very interested in seeing it.

[KirbyJack]

I just can't let myself get started here.

 

 

 

[Foxtrot70]

I want to believe that Kirby is actually making a play on some inside conversations, maybe even years of relationship btw them that we have no context. Unless he was just out of his mind due to age or SSI drugs, I am thinking he is using extreme sarcasm and exaggeration that only Stan Lee or other Marvel Employees would be able to interpret. Either way it is too bad Jack Kirby had to carry that burden for so many years. Besides, there is no promise money and fame will bring "joy". And in the end Bitterness is the real thief.

[Comic_Zone]

 

 

Whatever credit Stan Lee took decades ago that he didn't deserve and/or however much credit others gave Lee that he didn't deserve decades ago...Stan has very much changed his tone for many, many years now.

 

 

"It was a total collaborative affair and sometimes I feel a little guilty (when people say) Stan did this, Stan did that. I did it, but I did it with them and they really deserve as much credit as I can ever get." -Stan Lee

 

Compare that to Kirby's depiction of Stan's contributions:

 

"Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? I’m essentially something else: I’m a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying." -Jack Kirby

 

Comparing Lee at his most contrite with Kirby at his most bombastic is probably not a truly constructive advancement of the argument.

 

That is a fair point, but I've never read or seen anything to show that Stan speaking of Jack the way Jack spoke of Stan. Not only has Stan showered Kirby with praise, not only had he given Jack 90% of the credit at times, but he has used his celebrity as a platform to promote Jack's great work.

 

As I've said, if it weren't for Stan's frequent, excessive praise of Kirby's work, I don't know if I would have developed an appreciation for Kirby as early on as I did.

 

Stan has gone on record countless times to express that his memory isn't very good, but I've never seen Stan go out of his way to claim credit that didn't belong to him. Jack said that Stan did nothing, that Stan contributed nothing. That seems blatantly dishonest, and I have never seen evidence of Stan reciprocating that dishonesty. No matter how great of an artist, no matter how great of a visionary Jack was, it doesn't excuse dishonesty.

 

If there are any videos, any interviews or anything in writing that shows Stan doing anything in the same breath as what Jack did in his 1990 interview, I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

 

I agree that Jack was not at his best in this interview and you can tell he was angry and was doing his best to bring Stan down. But just imagine how much suffering he had to go through because of Stan Lee. Imagine you created all these classic characters and you don't get a single cent or credit because Stan Lee took it all in stride. In the past 15-20 yrs Stan has been more generous with sharing credits with his collaborators. All this is because the fans spoke up and fought for Jack and eventually got Marvel to offer Jack's family a pension and to give back his original art work. Stan is a great salesperson and he will never sell himself as a villain in the public hence he is always careful in his interviews. It's no secret Jack got short changed and Stan could've easily shared his wealth and credit with him in the 60's, 70's (and the readers would've respected him alot more and Jack would've never complained). I appreciate both creators and feel they both deserve equal credits. Without Stan's charisma and effort to expand the marvel universe outside comics Jack's characters would've never become the icons they are today. But without Jack's talent these characters would've never come alive.

It's not fair for you to say Jack is dishonest because of one interview, because Stan was dishonest for 40+ yrs for not sharing proper credits with Jack.

[Wayne-Tec]

Imagine you created all these classic characters and you don't get a single cent or credit because Stan Lee took it all in stride. In the past 15-20 yrs Stan has been more generous with sharing credits with his collaborators. All this is because the fans spoke up and fought for Jack and eventually got Marvel to offer Jack's family a pension and to give back his original art work. Stan is a great salesperson and he will never sell himself as a villain in the public hence he is always careful in his interviews. It's no secret Jack got short changed and Stan could've easily shared his wealth and credit with him in the 60's, 70's (and the readers would've respected him alot more and Jack would've never complained). I appreciate both creators and feel they both deserve equal credits. Without Stan's charisma and effort to expand the marvel universe outside comics Jack's characters would've never become the icons they are today. But without Jack's talent these characters would've never come alive.

It's not fair for you to say Jack is dishonest because of one interview, because Stan was dishonest for 40+ yrs for not sharing proper credits with Jack.

 

Can anyone confirm if Stan was involved in any contracts Jack signed?

 

Because if that's not the case, you can't blame Stan for Jack's financial situation. You say that Stan could have easily shared his wealth...are you referring to his own income? Because if Jack signed a bad deal with Marvel, that falls on Marvel and I don't see why Stan would be obligated to give away his own income. It's not as though Marvel didn't have plenty of money to take care of Jack.

 

I'm not saying that Jack was a dishonest person overall, I said that in the 1990 interview he was dishonest.

 

You accused Stan of being dishonest for 40 years...but what exactly was he dishonest about? Is there anything on video or in print that shows Stan lying the way Jack appeared to in his 1990 interview?

[revat]

 

Whatever credit Stan Lee took decades ago that he didn't deserve and/or however much credit others gave Lee that he didn't deserve decades ago...Stan has very much changed his tone for many, many years now.

 

 

"It was a total collaborative affair and sometimes I feel a little guilty (when people say) Stan did this, Stan did that. I did it, but I did it with them and they really deserve as much credit as I can ever get." -Stan Lee

 

Compare that to Kirby's depiction of Stan's contributions:

 

"Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasnt possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasnt a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? Im essentially something else: Im a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying." -Jack Kirby

 

Comparing Lee at his most contrite with Kirby at his most bombastic is probably not a truly constructive advancement of the argument.

 

That is a fair point, but I've never read or seen anything to show that Stan speaking of Jack the way Jack spoke of Stan. Not only has Stan showered Kirby with praise, not only had he given Jack 90% of the credit at times, but he has used his celebrity as a platform to promote Jack's great work.

 

As I've said, if it weren't for Stan's frequent, excessive praise of Kirby's work, I don't know if I would have developed an appreciation for Kirby as early on as I did.

 

Stan has gone on record countless times to express that his memory isn't very good, but I've never seen Stan go out of his way to claim credit that didn't belong to him. Jack said that Stan did nothing, that Stan contributed nothing. That seems blatantly dishonest, and I have never seen evidence of Stan reciprocating that dishonesty. No matter how great of an artist, no matter how great of a visionary Jack was, it doesn't excuse dishonesty.

 

If there are any videos, any interviews or anything in writing that shows Stan doing anything in the same breath as what Jack did in his 1990 interview, I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

 

I agree that Jack was not at his best in this interview and you can tell he was angry and was doing his best to bring Stan down. But just imagine how much suffering he had to go through because of Stan Lee. Imagine you created all these classic characters and you don't get a single cent or credit because Stan Lee took it all in stride. In the past 15-20 yrs Stan has been more generous with sharing credits with his collaborators. All this is because the fans spoke up and fought for Jack and eventually got Marvel to offer Jack's family a pension and to give back his original art work. Stan is a great salesperson and he will never sell himself as a villain in the public hence he is always careful in his interviews. It's no secret Jack got short changed and Stan could've easily shared his wealth and credit with him in the 60's, 70's (and the readers would've respected him alot more and Jack would've never complained). I appreciate both creators and feel they both deserve equal credits. Without Stan's charisma and effort to expand the marvel universe outside comics Jack's characters would've never become the icons they are today. But without Jack's talent these characters would've never come alive.

It's not fair for you to say Jack is dishonest because of one interview, because Stan was dishonest for 40+ yrs for not sharing proper credits with Jack.

 

Did he lie about the creative process? its one thing to just keep your mouth shut when people are heaping praise upon you, and quite another to actually be dishonest.

 

If you congratulate Kobe on winning his championships, do you expect him to say 'well I couldn't have done it without Shaq, Phil Jackson, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw' every single time out? Do you expect him to say, "Well the first championship I was only 15%, Shaq 75%, the second was more 50/50, and the last one was 60/40%". Is it ok that Kobe says "Thanks, I loved bringing the championship back to the Lakers"? Is it ok that he might get the occasional shot or situation mixed up when reminiscing about the zillion games he played?

 

There's a huge difference between, 'eh, he could have and probably should have treated his friend better, given how much his friend contributed to his success' and 'he's a dishonest, terrible person'.

 

YOu can't fault either guy for having shaky memories, they didn't know how epic these characters would be back when they were being first created. It was just another day at work for them, just like you and I at our jobs. I can't remember what I worked on 2 months ago, even if you pulled the file and put it down on my desk, and these guys are supposed to remember what happened all those years ago?

[Comic_Zone]

Imagine you created all these classic characters and you don't get a single cent or credit because Stan Lee took it all in stride. In the past 15-20 yrs Stan has been more generous with sharing credits with his collaborators. All this is because the fans spoke up and fought for Jack and eventually got Marvel to offer Jack's family a pension and to give back his original art work. Stan is a great salesperson and he will never sell himself as a villain in the public hence he is always careful in his interviews. It's no secret Jack got short changed and Stan could've easily shared his wealth and credit with him in the 60's, 70's (and the readers would've respected him alot more and Jack would've never complained). I appreciate both creators and feel they both deserve equal credits. Without Stan's charisma and effort to expand the marvel universe outside comics Jack's characters would've never become the icons they are today. But without Jack's talent these characters would've never come alive.

It's not fair for you to say Jack is dishonest because of one interview, because Stan was dishonest for 40+ yrs for not sharing proper credits with Jack.

 

Can anyone confirm if Stan was involved in any contracts Jack signed?

 

Because if that's not the case, you can't blame Stan for Jack's financial situation. You say that Stan could have easily shared his wealth...are you referring to his own income? Because if Jack signed a bad deal with Marvel, that falls on Marvel and I don't see why Stan would be obligated to give away his own income. It's not as though Marvel didn't have plenty of money to take care of Jack.

 

I'm not saying that Jack was a dishonest person overall, I said that in the 1990 interview he was dishonest.

 

You accused Stan of being dishonest for 40 years...but what exactly was he dishonest about? Is there anything on video or in print that shows Stan lying the way Jack appeared to in his 1990 interview?

 

 

Of course you are not going to find videos of Stan lying, he has his lawyer there with him at every tv interview. I'm not going to go into details, because it upsets me thinking about it. Just think about it logically and read up on the history on marvel written by anyone outside marvel.

I'll leave you with this interview clip.

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

Imagine you created all these classic characters and you don't get a single cent or credit because Stan Lee took it all in stride. In the past 15-20 yrs Stan has been more generous with sharing credits with his collaborators. All this is because the fans spoke up and fought for Jack and eventually got Marvel to offer Jack's family a pension and to give back his original art work. Stan is a great salesperson and he will never sell himself as a villain in the public hence he is always careful in his interviews. It's no secret Jack got short changed and Stan could've easily shared his wealth and credit with him in the 60's, 70's (and the readers would've respected him alot more and Jack would've never complained). I appreciate both creators and feel they both deserve equal credits. Without Stan's charisma and effort to expand the marvel universe outside comics Jack's characters would've never become the icons they are today. But without Jack's talent these characters would've never come alive.

It's not fair for you to say Jack is dishonest because of one interview, because Stan was dishonest for 40+ yrs for not sharing proper credits with Jack.

 

Can anyone confirm if Stan was involved in any contracts Jack signed?

 

Because if that's not the case, you can't blame Stan for Jack's financial situation. You say that Stan could have easily shared his wealth...are you referring to his own income? Because if Jack signed a bad deal with Marvel, that falls on Marvel and I don't see why Stan would be obligated to give away his own income. It's not as though Marvel didn't have plenty of money to take care of Jack.

 

I'm not saying that Jack was a dishonest person overall, I said that in the 1990 interview he was dishonest.

 

You accused Stan of being dishonest for 40 years...but what exactly was he dishonest about? Is there anything on video or in print that shows Stan lying the way Jack appeared to in his 1990 interview?

 

 

Of course you are not going to find videos of Stan lying, he has his lawyer there with him at every tv interview. I'm not going to go into details, because it upsets me thinking about it. Just think about it logically and read up on the history on marvel written by anyone outside marvel.

I'll leave you with this interview clip.

 

 

If there is no video evidence of Stan lying, is there any written, printed evidence of Stan lying?

 

Because to say he lied for 40+ years is a heavy accusation. As noted in a comment above, it's one thing not to go out of your way to consistently heap praise upon your partner, it's another to blatantly lie about the creative process and claim that your partner did 0% of the work when that was clearly not the case.

 

That video was shared earlier in this thread, and Moore's opinion seems to back Kirby's from the 1990 interview. However, if Stan ever took credit for creating Captain America in a book, like Moore claims, I'm sure someone will be able to provide a scan of the page.

 

I'm skeptical about that.

 

Also, Stan was not 12 years old in 1941 like Moore claims...he was pushing 20.

 

It would be one thing if more was using hyperbole about that fact but he doesn't appear to be, he just appears to be flat out incorrect in his statement.