Opinions on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Creative Efforts

[Hepcat]

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.

 

Absolutely so! I agree 100%! As a ten and eleven year old in 1962-63, I was looking over Marvel's superhero offerings on the newsstand but I wasn't buying any because compared with the DC house look the art looked crude and the characters were actually kind of freaky. In general the Marvels had the same sloppy low end of the market look as the Charltons. But, when I actually had a chance to read a Marvel comic somewhere, I found it a very compelling read. And it was precisely because I wanted the other pieces to the story Stan Lee was spinning across the Marvel line. Stan Lee was slyly drawing me into this elaborate cross title web! Moreover his informal banter made me and other young readers feel a part of it all! It was Stan who engineered Marvel's march to comic book dominance in the sixties.

 

(thumbs u

[ttfitz]

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.

 

Absolutely so! I agree 100%! As a ten and eleven year old in 1962-63, I was looking over Marvel's superhero offerings on the newsstand but I wasn't buying any because compared with the DC house look the art looked crude and the characters were actually kind of freaky. In general the Marvels had the same sloppy low end of the market look as the Charltons. But, when I actually had a chance to read a Marvel comic somewhere, I found it a very compelling read. And it was precisely because I wanted the other pieces to the story Stan Lee was spinning across the Marvel line. Stan Lee was slyly drawing me into this elaborate cross title web! Moreover his informal banter made me and other young readers feel a part of it all! It was Stan who engineered Marvel's march to comic book dominance in the sixties.

 

(thumbs u

 

On the opposite side of things, when I was a lad in the late 60s/early 70s, living in a small town with limited resources, I tended to be a DC fan, partly because of the classic characters, but partly because it was often hard to follow a Marvel story because it wasn't easy to find all the parts. Newsstand distribution wasn't the best, and there weren't that many outlets where I lived.

[rjpb]

 

On the opposite side of things, when I was a lad in the late 60s/early 70s, living in a small town with limited resources, I tended to be a DC fan, partly because of the classic characters, but partly because it was often hard to follow a Marvel story because it wasn't easy to find all the parts. Newsstand distribution wasn't the best, and there weren't that many outlets where I lived.

 

That was the risk with the Marvel method. Up until I was around 10 (1969), my preference was for humor, generally Sad Sack or Mad magazine, and my main experience with superhero books were from the coverless packs of comics ( 5 for 29¢ ), that my Mom would sometimes buy for me. I found the DCs much easier to follow, as the stories were generally self-contained, whereas the Marvels were frequently just one part of a story. But once I started reading more of them, I became fascinated with this interlocking world that was always being referred to. The "As seen in issue ______" captions made me want to find those issues, and probably more than anything else turned me into a collector as opposed to mere reader of comics.

[Comicopolis]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

[revat]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

 

he might have stayed silent if not for his relationship with marvel, but I don't think he would lie in a court affidavit. Maybe he was siding, maybe not, but he told the truth, and truth might have happened to favor Marvel, what can one do?

I don't know the details at all, just saying maybe that's what happened.

[chrisco37]

 

Absolutely so! I agree 100%! As a ten and eleven year old in 1962-63, I was looking over Marvel's superhero offerings on the newsstand but I wasn't buying any because compared with the DC house look the art looked crude and the characters were actually kind of freaky. In general the Marvels had the same sloppy low end of the market look as the Charltons. But, when I actually had a chance to read a Marvel comic somewhere, I found it a very compelling read. And it was precisely because I wanted the other pieces to the story Stan Lee was spinning across the Marvel line. Stan Lee was slyly drawing me into this elaborate cross title web! Moreover his informal banter made me and other young readers feel a part of it all! It was Stan who engineered Marvel's march to comic book dominance in the sixties.

 

(thumbs u

 

I wasn't around yet when the Marvel Universe was being formed. However, when I first started collecting comics, I had a few of the pocketbooks, and later would buy SA FF back issues and Masterworks. And this is exactly the impression I got from reading that stuff (except I liked the artwork).

 

Reading the old bullpens would get you excited about what was happening in the rest of the Marvel Universe. And, I always liked his little asides in (referencing older issues or just commenting direct to the reader).

 

I know it must have been an awesome ride for someone that was reading the stuff as it came out.

[Prince Namor]

Keep in mind that prior to 1961, Kirby's only notably super-successful creation was Captain America, and that title had already died out and was removed from publication in the mid 1950's. He simply didn't have the kind of track-record to reassure Goodman that he, single-handedly, could turn the company around from immediate shut down into profitable success.

 

Actually, Kirby had more than just Captain America, that was 'super-successful', prior to the creation of the Marvel Universe.

Boy Commandos sold over a million copies a month and was DC's third best selling title (it ran for 7 years), and the Newsboy Legion was another hit in the pages of Star Spangled Comics, running for 5 years.

 

After the war, Simon and Kirby produced their biggest hit ever, in creating the Romance genre for comics with Young Romance #1, which would sell (according to Simon) up to 2 million copies a month.

 

Prior to and following Kirby's departure from Marvel, Stan Lee has nothing that can even compare to the success of those books.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

I'm not aware of anything in print said by Stan.

Newspapers and magazine's often got it wrong, finding it easier to just lump Captain America in with the rest of the 'characters created by Stan.'

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

Not true.

 

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

 

What does it being a collaboration have to do with it being considered a success?

EVERYTHING Stan has ever had to do in comics is a collaboration because he can't draw.

 

 

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

 

Absolutely.

 

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

 

He was also great without either of them.

Surely you're not trying to say that New Gods has no more value than Brother Power the Geek or that Kamandi didn't have a lasting impact greater than Prez?

 

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

 

Depends on how you look at it. The Marvel method has led us to where comics are today. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

 

According to Sean Howe's book 'Marvel Comics - The Untold Story', when Simon was about to pursue a copyright claim on Captain America in the late sixties, Goodman responded by reprinting the old Cap stories in Fantasy masterpieces, MINUS the Joe Simon and Jack Kirby credits.

 

...Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain america," Goodman told him. "he wants the copyright and it looks like you're out". Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days....

 

I believe the amount he eventually got was something like $6000...

[Unca Ben]

Reading the old bullpens would get you excited about what was happening in the rest of the Marvel Universe. And, I always liked his little asides in (referencing older issues or just commenting direct to the reader).

 

I know it must have been an awesome ride for someone that was reading the stuff as it came out.

 

Yes, it was!

[chrisco37]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

 

According to Sean Howe's book 'Marvel Comics - The Untold Story', when Simon was about to pursue a copyright claim on Captain America in the late sixties, Goodman responded by reprinting the old Cap stories in Fantasy masterpieces, MINUS the Joe Simon and Jack Kirby credits.

 

...Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain america," Goodman told him. "he wants the copyright and it looks like you're out". Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days....

 

I believe the amount he eventually got was something like $6000...

 

You take issue with Stan not fighting to do more in regards to Jack's contract and/or compensation. I have yet to see you express the same disdain at Jack for selling out Joe Simon as is described above.

 

And your bolded part is equally applicable to the industry in the 1960's.

[Foxtrot70]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

 

According to Sean Howe's book 'Marvel Comics - The Untold Story', when Simon was about to pursue a copyright claim on Captain America in the late sixties, Goodman responded by reprinting the old Cap stories in Fantasy masterpieces, MINUS the Joe Simon and Jack Kirby credits.

 

...Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain america," Goodman told him. "he wants the copyright and it looks like you're out". Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days....

 

I believe the amount he eventually got was something like $6000...

 

$6k in the last 60s is big time money. You could buy a nice Corvette for that kinda dough.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

I was under the impression that Jack sided with Marvel then because he didn't want to rock the boat with his employers.

 

According to Sean Howe's book 'Marvel Comics - The Untold Story', when Simon was about to pursue a copyright claim on Captain America in the late sixties, Goodman responded by reprinting the old Cap stories in Fantasy masterpieces, MINUS the Joe Simon and Jack Kirby credits.

 

...Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain america," Goodman told him. "he wants the copyright and it looks like you're out". Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days....

 

I believe the amount he eventually got was something like $6000...

 

You take issue with Stan not fighting to do more in regards to Jack's contract and/or compensation. I have yet to see you express the same disdain at Jack for selling out Joe Simon as is described above.

 

And your bolded part is equally applicable to the industry in the 1960's.

 

Simon believed he created Captain America and was actively trying to go after the rights to the character without Jack. Goodman was trying to protect what he thought was his. Kirby gave a deposition on how the character was created.

 

How Kirby's the bad guy in all of that I don't see.

 

Simon would later go on to say, Kirby could've filed for the other 50% ownership of the copyright once he'd gotten it back. I know they had telephones in the 60's, not sure why these guys didn't just communicate with each other.

Simon also, apparently never resented Kirby for his deposition, which he a) said was true and b) said Jack really had no choice in having to give.