Opinions on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Creative Efforts

[Marvel Zombie]

 

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.

 

Marvel corp. did nothing and has done nothing to support the Kirby house. They ripped him off. Marvel ripped off Kirby's imaginative ideas and made a billion $ corporation on it. And they never looked back. They never compensated the Kirbys.

 

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

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.

 

Is there any evidence of that error being made at Stan's request?

[Hepcat]

While artists such as Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko deserve much if not most of the credit for creating the now iconic characters at Marvel and for telling the stories, Stan Lee is the fellow who deserves the credit for creating the Marvel Age of comics and turning the company from a secondary player in the industry to the dominant one.

 

It was Stan Lee who edited/plotted the Marvel Universe where all the characters were not only in the same Universe, they were basically in the same city and as a result were constantly bumping into one another! Both heroes and villains were constantly crossing over to other titles. It was therefore Stan Lee who induced eleven year olds to buy other Marvel comics to get the rest of the story.

 

It was also Stan Lee who was constantly leaving loose threads at the end of every story, in stark contrast to DC where every story was neatly self-contained and the characters were essentially set back to base at the end of every tale. It was therefore Stan Lee who left eleven year old readers hungry for the next comic to get the final resolution, which of course never came.

 

Much is now made of the characterization in Marvel comics by old farts like ourselves looking back at those comics. But Marvel's success with kids in the early to mid-sixties was due to Stan Lee leaving these kids looking to get the whole story in other Marvel comics. That plus all the punch-ups which kids loved since the most commonly asked query by kids is "Who do you think would win in a fight between...?"

 

[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.

 

Marvel corp. did nothing and has done nothing to support the Kirby house. They ripped him off. Marvel ripped off Kirby's imaginative ideas and made a billion $ corporation on it. And they never looked back. They never compensated the Kirbys.

 

 

 

I agree to a contract with you, to create PRODUCT A, for the sum of $$$. Part of the contract is that PRODUCT A is now yours to do with as you please, whether its publish, eat with cream cheese, burn, use as TP, or lock in a vault for 80 years before writing the -script to Zoolander 2 on the back of it.

 

I use my considerable talents, and make Product A, I deliver it to you. You are satisfied with it, you give me the money we agreed upon.

 

If you then sell it for $1, $10, or $1M, or $1B, why would I be entitled to any of your future profits? How does that make any sense?

 

How many billions of products are made by employees/contractors for companies/bosses? Does each of those employees have the RIGHT to a share of the profits ON TOP of the already MUTUALLY AGREED UPON payment?

 

It's nice to be nice, its nice to give credit where credit is due. Its GREAT to try take care of those that helped you get you where are today, its laudable, its admirable. But IT'S NOT ripping someone off to pay someone an agreed upon wage for a service they provided, and then turn a profit (or many many profits) on those services, and then not have any more interaction (financial or otherwise) with that person.

 

There's a HUGE difference between 'not nice' and ripping people off. And possibly a legal difference in the written word, which is where I would tread more lightly.

 

[Hepcat]

But IT'S NOT ripping someone off to pay someone an agreed upon wage for a service they provided, and then turn a profit (or many many profits) on those services, and then not have any more interaction (financial or otherwise) with that person.

 

There's a HUGE difference between 'not nice' and ripping people off.

 

That's correct.

 

(thumbs u

 

And possibly a legal difference in the written word, which is where I would tread more lightly.

 

Tread lightly? On a chat board? Oh come on. There's no money here, only hot air, and it's the money ambulance chasers follow.

 

[plasticman]

There are two issues: who gets credit, and who gets compensated.

 

Generally speaking, the creator is the person who conceived the idea of the character, for example: Harry Potter. However in comics, part of the creation process is the illustration of the character. Also, it is a well-known fact that Marvel used a collaborative process to create the story of their comics in the 1960's and 1970s.

 

Reagan used to say that there is no limit to what can be accomplished as long as one doesnt care who gets the credit. With regard to Marvel, it is clear that Stan Lee is the conceiver of most of the key properties, but looking at the Marvel process, it is very likely that Kirby and Ditko added much to the original concept, so that they each deserve (and are given, by both Marvel and Stan Lee) some of the credit for creating these iconic characters.

 

Because co-credit is given by both Marvel and Lee, the issue of who is the creator(s) of the characters is a settled issue and not worth further discussion.

 

However...

 

Regarding compensation: Even with all of the changes in intellectual property law in the last few decades, Lee and Kirby/Ditko have very little legal grounds to be compensated for their creations. Lee realized this and created a side deal with Marvel for himself that has nothing to do with royalties etc for the characters he created/co-created. Kirby didnt, his estate hasnt, and Ditko hasnt created their own side deal. I am not sure that the door to that is still open.

 

The only real remedy for Kirby's heirs and for Ditko is for the corporation to voluntarily cut them in on the money that is being made on their co-creations. Neal Adams forced DC to do this for the two Superman creators when the Superman movies of the late 1970s were being run.

 

There should be a way to force the corporates to give Ditko or Kirby estate a lump sum each time the movies are done, similar to the way some actors get a gross point of the money that their movie brings in. The only way to do it is to frame it as a "right vs wrong" issue, rather than a legal issue. And the person demanding it or leading the way has to be someone with some power or at least with the ability to command attention.

 

For example, what if Robert Downey Jr and some of the other actor said that they would like to see this matter resolved before they work on another Avengers or Iron Man movie?

 

 

[Hepcat]

There should be a way to force the corporates to give Ditko or Kirby estate a lump sum each time the movies are done, similar to the way some actors get a gross point of the money that their movie brings in. The only way to do it is to frame it as a "right vs wrong" issue, rather than a legal issue. And the person demanding it or leading the way has to be someone with some power or at least with the ability to command attention.

 

Force? Why? I'm on the side of consensual agreements, not force.

 

[revat]

There should be a way to force the corporates to give Ditko or Kirby estate a lump sum each time the movies are done, similar to the way some actors get a gross point of the money that their movie brings in. The only way to do it is to frame it as a "right vs wrong" issue, rather than a legal issue. And the person demanding it or leading the way has to be someone with some power or at least with the ability to command attention.

 

Force? Why? I'm on the side of consensual agreements, not force.

 

 

I think he means 'force' through contract negotiations (from a major employee) or PR battles. Not a court order or under duress.

[rjpb]

I seem to recall reading that Joe Simon was the one with the business head in the S&K team. One wonders if Kirby would have been able to cut himself a better deal if he had still been teamed with Simon.

[Comicopolis]

Alan Moore’s Stan Lee and “Jolly Jack” Comments

[Comicopolis]

Stan Lee talks Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and the question of credit

[Hepcat]

Alan Moore’s Stan Lee and “Jolly Jack” Comments

 

...Lee certainly might have said that (Lee claims he created everything else) and Moore may be making a joke (Lee claiming he created Cap would be completely over-the-top in terms of it’s absurdity), but I just don’t recall seeing that exact quote from Lee — I’ve never seen Lee take his peculiar brand of megalomania and egomania quite that far....

 

This Rob Steibel guy is quite the piece of work. His comments about Stan Lee say more about Rob Steibel than they do about Stan Lee.

 

[ttfitz]

Alan Moore’s Stan Lee and “Jolly Jack” Comments

 

That video has been posted in this thread a couple times - okay, not THAT video, but a different video made at the same talk - and it has been pointed out that Moore's rememberance of Stan's claims on creating Captain America were not correct.

 

[ttfitz]

Alan Moore’s Stan Lee and “Jolly Jack” Comments

 

...Lee certainly might have said that (Lee claims he created everything else) and Moore may be making a joke (Lee claiming he created Cap would be completely over-the-top in terms of it’s absurdity), but I just don’t recall seeing that exact quote from Lee — I’ve never seen Lee take his peculiar brand of megalomania and egomania quite that far....

 

This Rob Steibel guy is quite the piece of work. His comments about Stan Lee say more about Rob Steibel than they do about Stan Lee.

 

 

Ah, I didn't read the page, I clicked on the video link, which took me to YouTube. So at least he acknowledged that Moore got some facts wrong.

[Silver Surfer]

Also, let's not forget Stan's contribution to this industry as a whole over many, many years. Stan's ability to spark readers interest in a genre that was shunned for years cannot be properly measured. His passion for the industry and how he has helped keep comics in the forefront of people's minds throughout the years will be remember for many decades to come. No one can even come close IMO, artist, writer, executive or otherwise.

[bluechip]

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?

 

Stan has always described the surfer as Jack's creation but he could easily take credit as co-creator if the same principle were applied as with Ditko in the Spider-man creation.

 

Jack drew the surfer as a nameless "herald" -- a minion of Galactus. In fact, he was one of several such minions in the story. No back story. No details. But Stan liked the one herald (which he dubbed the silver surfer) and didn't care for the other(s) and created one of the best and most complicated characters in the mcu. Jack did not invent the story of norrin radd sacrificing himself for his planet, or the story of him taking on his boss over the fate of the humans. That came when Lee saw the first story and said let's do more with him and gave Jack a new direction to go in fff 49 and 50. Did Jack add to it? Was he in on the brainstorming as well as doing the art and storyboard? Most likely.

 

So Jack had the initial idea and Stan built on it big time. If you wanna say Jack is still the only creator, then at least be consistent. Some who take that view are anything but. Some say that Stan's idea for Spider-man means little or nothing and it's all about Ditko's fleshing out of Spider-man. And once they say that and the topic shifts to the silver surfer they insist it was all about Jack's original idea and Stan's fleshing out the character means nothing. In their view.

 

 

BTW, in a serialized format it means nothing that some people will be given only an idea and then run with it receiving hardly any help from the creator. Try telling that to the creators of TV shows who then hand over the reins to other producers and writers, who may need little more than an idea (or not even that) to do entire episodes on their own. Did they producer/write those episodes? Sure. Does that mean we must credit them for creating the series. F&&k no.

 

And Ditko's costume btw was damned familiar to the Ben Cooper "spider man" (sans hyphen) costumes that showed up on sidewalks and doorsteps all throughout the 50s in the neighborhoods where Ditko was living.

 

Does any of the above lessen Ditko or Kirby's contributions? No.

 

But you can bet that if Stan claimed he made any designs for the costume that those old Ben Cooper ads would be used as proof that Lee is a liar and Ditko is a saint.

 

Because they start with the conclusion that Stan was a "PT Barnum" or a "salesman" and they will conclude he isn't the creator of any character, not matter how much they have to embrace contradictory arguments to come to that conclusion.

 

 

[Hepcat]

So Jack had the initial idea and Stan built on it big time. If you wanna say Jack is still the only creator, then at least be consistent. Some who take that view are anything but. Some say that Stan's idea for Spider-man means little or nothing and it's all about Ditko's fleshing out of Spider-man. And once they say that and the topic shifts to the silver surfer they insist it was all about Jack's original idea and Stan's fleshing out the character means nothing. In their view.

 

Because they start with the conclusion that Stan was a "PT Barnum" or a "salesman" and they will conclude he isn't the creator of any character, not matter how much they have to embrace contradictory arguments to come to that conclusion.

 

There's a name for these people. They're called artist fanboys and to them comics begin and end with the artwork.

 

[Unca Ben]

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.

Can you show examples how Stan became "more generous" sharing credit in the last 15-20 years? Specifically, direct quotes from Stan, where he was less generous in the past? Please don't include the famous magazine article that painted Stan as the creative mastermind behind Marvel, and cast Jack in a less than flattering light. Stan's already on record stating his displeasure with how that article turned out.

 

As I showed in my previous post, Stan always gave praise to his artistic collaborators, Kirby in particular. I can show another Bullpen Bulletins page where Stan lavished praise on Kirby, above and beyond the call of duty.

 

 

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.

I'd say most of us are aware of the Jonathan Ross documentary, and Stan and Steve's disagreement over the term "creator" as well as the term "considered".

 

 

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.

 

 

Already researched.

 

Were you aware Jack Kirby sided with Marvel in 1966 and 1967, during Joe Simon's lawsuit(s) for the rights to Captain America?

Joe Simon claimed that he (Joe Simon) was the independent and sole creator of Captain America, Bucky, and the Red Skull, and that he (Joe Simon) was not an employee for hire, rather the work was done on spec.

 

Kirby's affidavit backed up Marvel's argument that the books were created under "work for hire" conditions, and Kirby's account was that they (Simon and Kirby) both worked out the character of Captain America together.

 

Jack Kirby's affidavit backed up Marvel's assertion that the characters and books were created under the "work for hire" banner. The same argument Marvel later used successfully against the Kirby family.

 

[Unca Ben]

Re-posted for posterity:

Stan's lavish praise for Jack circa '66

 

Stan on the artists contributions. I don't see where Stan has changed his story over the years. He always gave credit where credit was due.

 

[rjpb]

Re-posted for posterity:

Stan's lavish praise for Jack circa '66

 

Stan on the artists contributions. I don't see where Stan has changed his story over the years. He always gave credit where credit was due.

 

Stan's streamlined approach gave him the opportunity to write snappy banter and captions for almost every title, the style of which gave Marvel it's uniformity and sense of continuity for most of the Silver Age. Stan as the main driver of the concept of a Marvel Universe can't be denied. Back then many fans felt like they had to buy all the superhero titles, or they might be missing part of the Marvel story. I never got the same impression fans felt the same about DC from that era. The world of Superboy & the LSH had nothing to do with the world of Batman.