Opinions on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Creative Efforts

[Comic_Zone]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist (apparently anyone can just draw it).....there you go. There's almost no point arguing about this. People believe what they want to believe, I would just recommend doing more research before jumping into conclusions.

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist......there you go.

 

 

That's just a matter of interpreting the word "creator."

 

Personally, I don't completely agree with Stan's opinion in that respect. He may have dreamt up the idea but it certainly took a collaborative effort to deliver the final product.

 

His personal interpretation of the word is not at all the same as lying about who contributed what during the creative process. Stan has gone on record saying that Kirby did 90% of the work at times. In Jack's interview, he said Stan contributed 0%.

 

Stan...from everything I have watched and read, seems to always give credit to Kirby in respects to what he contributed during the creative process. He seems to take no issue with often times giving Kirby the majority of the credit, reiterating time and time again that his dreams and concepts would have not reached the success they did without Kirby.

 

Where's the dishonesty in that?

 

Conversely, Kirby's depiction of history seemed quite matter-of-fact, inaccurate and dishonest.

[bronze johnny]

Would the fact that Stan Lee has out lived Jack Kirby and is currently around to enjoy faulty memory of posterity? The "Last Man Standing" can sometimes benefit in having the last word.

 

One thing to also consider is that Stan Lee was a genius at promoting and creating an "image" of himself as the "Man" of Marvel Comics. Was Jack Kirby in the same league as Stan Lee when it came to this? I'd venture to say no way.

 

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were both geniuses. Kirby was a genius who created comic book characters and a mythology through several of the most significant decades in comic book history. Stan Lee was the greatest promotor in comic book history - a genius for making his role and its success synonymous with that of Marvel Comics.

 

The legacies that they have may very well go beyond the recipes they put together to create some great stuff during an age of the comic book that grows more distant from our collective memory.

 

We should treat them both as comic book icons...until the written history that is based on credible primary resources (if any exists?) proves otherwise. Until then, we'll just have to hypothesize - which is interesting and fun, nevertheless.

[Wayne-Tec]

There have been a lot of serious accusations hurled at Stan, but they just don't seem to hold ground.

 

Kirby said Stan was a 13 year old kid when he and Joe Simon created Captain America.

 

That wasn't accurate, or even close to accurate, as he was pushing 20.

 

Alan Moore said that Stan was 12 years old when Simon and Kirby created Captain America.

 

Again, Stan was pushing 20.

 

Alan Moore said that Stan, in print, took credit for creating Captain America.

 

Can anyone provide a scan of this page, or any other confirming this? I've seen nothing.

 

People blame Stan for Jack's financial situation.

 

Was Stan involved in any of the contracts Jack signed on his own volition?

 

People expect Stan to have shared his wealth with Jack.

 

Shouldn't it be Marvel who shares the wealth? Stan didn't sign Jack's contracts for him.

 

Jack claims that Stan contributed 0% to the creation of the characters.

 

It may have been 80/20, 90/10 at times, but it certainly wasn't zero.

 

Jack claims that he created Spider-Man's costume.

 

The general consensus seems to be that Steve Ditko did.

 

 

Outside of debating Stan's interpretation of the word "creator", Stan seems to go above and beyond to credit his artists for all of their contributions. I can't think of a single writer who has taken less credit for the actual work that was completed. He dreamed up the initial concepts, so to him he's the creator.

 

But I've yet to see a shred of evidence showing Stan being dishonest.

 

I'm not saying it isn't out there. I'm just waiting to see something.

[Comic_Zone]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist......there you go.

 

 

That's just a matter of interpreting the word "creator."

 

Personally, I don't completely agree with Stan's opinion in that respect. He may have dreamt up the idea but it certainly took a collaborative effort to deliver the final product.

 

His personal interpretation of the word is not at all the same as lying about who contributed what during the creative process. Stan has gone on record saying that Kirby did 90% of the work at times. In Jack's interview, he said Stan contributed 0%.

 

Stan...from everything I have watched and read, seems to always give credit to Kirby in respects to what he contributed during the creative process. He seems to take no issue with often times giving Kirby the majority of the credit, reiterating time and time again that his dreams and concepts would have not reached the success they did without Kirby.

 

Where's the dishonesty in that?

 

Conversely, Kirby's depiction of history seemed quite matter-of-fact, inaccurate and dishonest.

 

As I've stated in my first post, Stan has become more generous with sharing credits in the past 15-20 years because he knows the fans know better now and if he doesn't share the credits he would just look like the villain in this case. Again you are basing everything on one interview Kirby did. Kirby was not right to say what he said, but I can understand his frustration. I'm an artist myself and if someone took my creations and sold it for millions and I don't get any compensation for it I'd be equally pissed. I know you've read some of the recent Stan Lee interviews, and I've read the ones you have stated as well. As you see in the interview clip, he said and I quote " I had always thought I was ( creator of spiderman)." and that was his attitude from the 60's to 90's. Just because he owned up to it now does not erase what he said in the past. Think about it logically, if he was so good at sharing credits early on wouldn't you think the artists would enjoy working with him more? and actually stick around the company.

I'm not here to bash Stan Lee, I appreciate him for what he has done for Marvel and the industry.

 

[Wayne-Tec]

As I've stated in my first post, Stan has become more generous with sharing credits in the past 15-20 years because he knows the fans know better now and if he doesn't share the credits he would just look like the villain in this case. Again you are basing everything on one interview Kirby did. Kirby was not right to say what he said, but I can understand his frustration. I'm an artist myself and if someone took my creations and sold it for millions and I don't get any compensation for it I'd be equally pissed. I know you've read some of the recent Stan Lee interviews, and I've read the ones you have stated as well. As you see in the interview clip, he said and I quote " I had always thought I was ( creator of spiderman)." and that was his attitude from the 60's to 90's. Just because he owned up to it now does not erase what he said in the past. Think about it logically, if he was so good at sharing credits early on wouldn't you think the artists would enjoy working with him more? and actually stick around the company.

I'm not here to bash Stan Lee, I appreciate him for what he has done for Marvel and the industry.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just awaiting any evidence from the 1960's-1990's that backs up any claims of Stan being dishonest.

 

The interview Kirby did in 1990 is just one. If you can find interviews where he gave a more accurate depiction of history, I'd welcome the opportunity to read them. I'm only criticizing Jack for this one interview and in that one interview, he struck me as being very dishonest. Frustrated or not, that isn't any kind of justification.

 

He could have easily said that he did more work than people realize, and that he feels short-changed in the credit department as a result of his contributions being so vast.

 

Keep in mind, it's Stan Lee who has continued to go out of his way to shower praise on Kirby at the expense of making himself look less involved. That's the general tone of what I've seen in Stan's interviews.

 

If you can find anything, from any time period where Stan has been blatantly dishonest, please feel free to share it in this thread.

[HarveySwick]

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

 

Very interesting interview. (thumbs u

 

[rodan57]

I'm only criticizing Jack for this one interview and in that one interview, he struck me as being very dishonest. Frustrated or not, that isn't any kind of justification.

 

Maybe it's time to read other sources.

 

Waiting for people to supply you with links, to counter such a contrived argument, is akin to playing intellectual games and is unnecessarily provocative with collectors and fans that have spent a lot of time seeking to understand this complex period of comic history.

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

I'm only criticizing Jack for this one interview and in that one interview, he struck me as being very dishonest. Frustrated or not, that isn't any kind of justification.

 

Maybe it's time to read other sources.

 

Waiting for people to supply you with links, to counter such a contrived argument, is akin to playing intellectual games and is unnecessarily provocative with collectors and fans that have spent a lot of time seeking to understand this complex period of comic history.

 

 

I'm not looking to win a debate if I'm genuinely mistaken. As I've already admitted, such information may very well be out there. I've been in the process of trying to find it but have not come up with anything yet. I'm not meaning to be provocative and I'll be the first person to apologize to anyone if my comments have come across as anything more than passionate and interested.

 

I'm a fan of both Lee and Kirby...big time.

 

So if there's information out there that paints a clearer picture, I'd welcome it.

[ttfitz]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist (apparently anyone can just draw it).....there you go. There's almost no point arguing about this. People believe what they want to believe, I would just recommend doing more research before jumping into conclusions.

 

 

This was a very interesting interview, thanks for linking to that.

 

In a way, I understand Stan's perspective on this. I think it was best seen when Jonathan Ross responded to Stan talking about giving the idea to the artist by saying something like, "But what if you gave it to someone who wasn't as talented as Steve?" To which Stan said, "Then I would have created something that wasn't successful."

 

So Stan sees it as, Stan Lee idea + no Steve Ditko = crappy Spider-Man. No Stan Lee idea + Steve Ditko = no Spider-Man. I can see that viewing the guy who came up with the idea as the creator might seem logical, as well as acknowledging that the artist ultimately was part of that creation, too.

 

I wonder exactly what Stan has said about who the creator of Silver Surfer is - that would be an example of a character that, while shaped by Stan's dialogue, has been acknowledged by all sides has having been created by Jack. Does Stan consider himself "co-creator" of Silver Surfer?

[Unca Ben]

I can see where the Marvel Method of creating comics could lead to the resentment that we've seen.

The separation of responsibilities between plotting, drawing and writing wasn't clear cut, like other companies. But I suspect paying the page rates (and the creative credit) was reflective of the customary division of labor.

 

Stan would get the Editors credit, and the average Marvel credits box in the '60s would say something like "Story by Stan Lee" and "Art by Jack Kirby (or Ditko, or Heck, etc)".

I am guessing the artist(s) got the going page rate for drawing the stories that were credited like this, but not a share in the going page rate for plotting, writing, or scripting these stories.

 

Unless one read things like the Bullpen Bulletins (pictured below) it would be easy to get the impression that Stan plotted and wrote the story, and scripted all the text and dialogue, and the artist then drew the story Stan provided.

 

Seeing the original art to many of these stories, it's clear from the margin notes and corrections that the scripting was oftentimes collaborative; Kirby would suggest some quoted dialogue in the margins, and Stan would use it and spice it up, or change it all together.

The plots could be collaborative as well, even if Stan's contribution was just a story idea.

 

Of course, Ditko started getting plotting credits in ASM, and Kirby in the FF, later on.

 

 

• As far as an 80/20 or 90/10 division of labor biased towards the artists, remember that for quite a while Stan was the sole editor and primary art director for the Marvel line, and he sometimes helped the production department when Goodman would lay everyone off except for Lee and Brodsky. That, along with Lee's writing chores, qualifies for more than 10 or 20%, in my eyes.

• There was an earlier thread that discussed the Alan Moore interview. Basically, most of Moore's claims were shown to be false.

• Below is a Bullpen Bulletins page where Stan gives credit to many of his artists for drawing and plotting the story. This would have been printed around 1967, I believe.
  

[Foxtrot70]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist (apparently anyone can just draw it).....there you go. There's almost no point arguing about this. People believe what they want to believe, I would just recommend doing more research before jumping into conclusions.

 

 

This was a very interesting interview, thanks for linking to that.

 

In a way, I understand Stan's perspective on this. I think it was best seen when Jonathan Ross responded to Stan talking about giving the idea to the artist by saying something like, "But what if you gave it to someone who wasn't as talented as Steve?" To which Stan said, "Then I would have created something that wasn't successful."

 

So Stan sees it as, Stan Lee idea + no Steve Ditko = crappy Spider-Man. No Stan Lee idea + Steve Ditko = no Spider-Man. I can see that viewing the guy who came up with the idea as the creator might seem logical, as well as acknowledging that the artist ultimately was part of that creation, too.

 

I wonder exactly what Stan has said about who the creator of Silver Surfer is - that would be an example of a character that, while shaped by Stan's dialogue, has been acknowledged by all sides has having been created by Jack. Does Stan consider himself "co-creator" of Silver Surfer?

 

At the very end of the Princeton interview of Stan in 60s (see earlier post), Stan says that Jack drew in Silver Surfer wout prior discussion of the FF story arc. It was a surprise to Stan. In another interview I believe he says he wished he could have finished writing the SS solo series so it could have been all his own from a story perspective, but I didnt take it that he implied he had in anyway made Silver Silver what he was.

[Wayne-Tec]

 

Great image. (thumbs u

 

Stan really seemed like he went out of his way to credit Kirby, Ditko and others.

 

He certainly didn't have to include anything like that in his comics, but I think he genuinely wanted to give credit to his collaborators. I can't think of another writer in comics who went out of his way more to praise his partners artwork and plotting abilities, even if such praise often came at the expense of making him look silly.

[ttfitz]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist (apparently anyone can just draw it).....there you go. There's almost no point arguing about this. People believe what they want to believe, I would just recommend doing more research before jumping into conclusions.

 

 

This was a very interesting interview, thanks for linking to that.

 

In a way, I understand Stan's perspective on this. I think it was best seen when Jonathan Ross responded to Stan talking about giving the idea to the artist by saying something like, "But what if you gave it to someone who wasn't as talented as Steve?" To which Stan said, "Then I would have created something that wasn't successful."

 

So Stan sees it as, Stan Lee idea + no Steve Ditko = crappy Spider-Man. No Stan Lee idea + Steve Ditko = no Spider-Man. I can see that viewing the guy who came up with the idea as the creator might seem logical, as well as acknowledging that the artist ultimately was part of that creation, too.

 

I wonder exactly what Stan has said about who the creator of Silver Surfer is - that would be an example of a character that, while shaped by Stan's dialogue, has been acknowledged by all sides has having been created by Jack. Does Stan consider himself "co-creator" of Silver Surfer?

 

At the very end of the Princeton interview of Stan in 60s (see earlier post), Stan says that Jack drew in Silver Surfer wout prior discussion of the FF story arc. It was a surprise to Stan. In another interview I believe he says he wished he could have finished writing the SS solo series so it could have been all his own from a story perspective, but I didnt take it that he implied he had in anyway made Silver Silver what he was.

 

Yeah, I knew that. What I was getting at is, the Silver Surfer is, in a way, the reverse of all these other examples - Stan didn't have the idea, Jack did, but Stan's dialogue certainly contributed to the character we think of when we think of the Silver Surfer. So does Stan think his contribution to the character made him "co-creator", or does he give that credit solely to the guy who came up with the idea?

[ciorac]

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.

 

Stan was the "voice" of Marvel comics for decades.

 

Kirby created nothing of value after their collaboration, and not much prior. So, yes, it is a valid argument.

 

Captain America was a collaboration with Joe Simon, as was Guardian, Newsboy Legion, the revamped Sandman etc.

 

Kirby is my second favorite artist of all time. Love the man.

 

Stan was great in large part due to Kirby, Ditko and Romita. Kirby was great due in large part to Stan and Joe.

 

The 80/20 assertion above is preposterous. Stan did WAY more for Marvel and for comics in general than Kirby ever did.

[Wayne-Tec]

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.

 

Stan was the "voice" of Marvel comics for decades.

 

Kirby created nothing of value after their collaboration, and not much prior. So, yes, it is a valid argument.

 

Captain America was a collaboration with Joe Simon, as was Guardian, Newsboy Legion, the revamped Sandman etc.

 

Kirby is my second favorite artist of all time. Love the man.

 

Stan was great in large part due to Kirby, Ditko and Romita. Kirby was great due in large part to Stan and Joe.

 

The 80/20 assertion above is preposterous. Stan did WAY more for Marvel and for comics in general than Kirby ever did.

 

[Crimebuster]

Kirby created nothing of value after their collaboration, and not much prior. So, yes, it is a valid argument.

 

Captain America was a collaboration with Joe Simon, as was Guardian, Newsboy Legion, the revamped Sandman etc.

 

Kirby is my second favorite artist of all time. Love the man.

 

Stan was great in large part due to Kirby, Ditko and Romita. Kirby was great due in large part to Stan and Joe.

 

The 80/20 assertion above is preposterous. Stan did WAY more for Marvel and for comics in general than Kirby ever did.

 

Oh, c'mon.

 

I'm a Stan guy too, but this is silly. Kirby created plenty of "value" after he left Marvel, such as the entire Fourth World among other things. He also created plenty prior to working with Stan, including, you know, the entire romance genre.

 

I tend to view their collaboration much closer to a 50-50 split, but painting Jack as just a guy who illustrated Stan or Joe Simon's ideas is as backwards as people claiming Stan just added dialogue to Jack's comics. Jack proved with his other work that he was a major idea guy, even if you personally don't seem to value his other ideas.

[revat]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist......there you go.

 

 

That's just a matter of interpreting the word "creator."

 

Personally, I don't completely agree with Stan's opinion in that respect. He may have dreamt up the idea but it certainly took a collaborative effort to deliver the final product.

 

His personal interpretation of the word is not at all the same as lying about who contributed what during the creative process. Stan has gone on record saying that Kirby did 90% of the work at times. In Jack's interview, he said Stan contributed 0%.

 

Stan...from everything I have watched and read, seems to always give credit to Kirby in respects to what he contributed during the creative process. He seems to take no issue with often times giving Kirby the majority of the credit, reiterating time and time again that his dreams and concepts would have not reached the success they did without Kirby.

 

Where's the dishonesty in that?

 

Conversely, Kirby's depiction of history seemed quite matter-of-fact, inaccurate and dishonest.

 

As I've stated in my first post, Stan has become more generous with sharing credits in the past 15-20 years because he knows the fans know better now and if he doesn't share the credits he would just look like the villain in this case. Again you are basing everything on one interview Kirby did. Kirby was not right to say what he said, but I can understand his frustration. I'm an artist myself and if someone took my creations and sold it for millions and I don't get any compensation for it I'd be equally pissed. I know you've read some of the recent Stan Lee interviews, and I've read the ones you have stated as well. As you see in the interview clip, he said and I quote " I had always thought I was ( creator of spiderman)." and that was his attitude from the 60's to 90's. Just because he owned up to it now does not erase what he said in the past. Think about it logically, if he was so good at sharing credits early on wouldn't you think the artists would enjoy working with him more? and actually stick around the company.

I'm not here to bash Stan Lee, I appreciate him for what he has done for Marvel and the industry.

 

your statement about not getting compensation is not accurate. Jack Kirby was PAID in money for every page he ever drew for Marvel. He was paid at a rate HE agreed to. He made a better living than just about any other contemporary artist. He was a contractor for a company. At the end of any given contract, he no more responsibility to Marvel or Stan than they did to him. Nobody 'owed' him anything else, nor did he 'owe' anything to Marvel. That's how the world works, that what many of us call 'work' or 'having a job'. Owner of the company makes the big bucks because he hires talent and risks HIS money.

 

 

 

Does it kinda suck? Yah it does. Would it have been cool to toss something to Kirby earlier? probably. But you can't fault a business for being a business.

[shadroch]

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.

 

The initial ads for the 1980s Captain America movie state the hero was created by $tan Lee. They were soon retracted after numerous complaints.

[Silver Surfer]

Here's another interview to prove my point ( Stan Lee's lawyer actually wasn't there). He told everyone he was the sole creator of Spiderman until Steve Ditko finally spoke. But you can tell in the interview he believes whoever thought of the idea is the creator and not the artist......there you go.

 

 

That's just a matter of interpreting the word "creator."

 

Personally, I don't completely agree with Stan's opinion in that respect. He may have dreamt up the idea but it certainly took a collaborative effort to deliver the final product.

 

His personal interpretation of the word is not at all the same as lying about who contributed what during the creative process. Stan has gone on record saying that Kirby did 90% of the work at times. In Jack's interview, he said Stan contributed 0%.

 

Stan...from everything I have watched and read, seems to always give credit to Kirby in respects to what he contributed during the creative process. He seems to take no issue with often times giving Kirby the majority of the credit, reiterating time and time again that his dreams and concepts would have not reached the success they did without Kirby.

 

Where's the dishonesty in that?

 

Conversely, Kirby's depiction of history seemed quite matter-of-fact, inaccurate and dishonest.

 

As I've stated in my first post, Stan has become more generous with sharing credits in the past 15-20 years because he knows the fans know better now and if he doesn't share the credits he would just look like the villain in this case. Again you are basing everything on one interview Kirby did. Kirby was not right to say what he said, but I can understand his frustration. I'm an artist myself and if someone took my creations and sold it for millions and I don't get any compensation for it I'd be equally pissed. I know you've read some of the recent Stan Lee interviews, and I've read the ones you have stated as well. As you see in the interview clip, he said and I quote " I had always thought I was ( creator of spiderman)." and that was his attitude from the 60's to 90's. Just because he owned up to it now does not erase what he said in the past. Think about it logically, if he was so good at sharing credits early on wouldn't you think the artists would enjoy working with him more? and actually stick around the company.

I'm not here to bash Stan Lee, I appreciate him for what he has done for Marvel and the industry.

 

your statement about not getting compensation is not accurate. Jack Kirby was PAID in money for every page he ever drew for Marvel. He was paid at a rate HE agreed to. He made a better living than just about any other contemporary artist. He was a contractor for a company. At the end of any given contract, he no more responsibility to Marvel or Stan than they did to him. Nobody 'owed' him anything else, nor did he 'owe' anything to Marvel. That's how the world works, that what many of us call 'work' or 'having a job'. Owner of the company makes the big bucks because he hires talent and risks HIS money.

 

 

 

Does it kinda suck? Yah it does. Would it have been cool to toss something to Kirby earlier? probably. But you can't fault a business for being a business.

 

That pretty much sums it up. Stan was management, Jack was not.