Who sold all of that Silver Age Original Artwork from Marvel? 3 3

[Randall Dowling]

1 hour ago, mtlevy1 said:

Yeah, no

I thought posting the photo from the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark would clearly come across as not serious.  Apologies for my poor attempt at humor.

[KCOComics]

I think the situation at Marvel in the late 60s was unbelievable complicated and the specifics aren't known even by the few survivors that were there. 

Remember Goodman had sold the company at that point, though he was still playing a role in the comics division.

In "Marvel, the untold story", they talk about how alot of the original art was given away to interns and new employees. It was given away because they thought it was kind of neat, they had tons of it and no one really cared about it. 

One of the interns did pool a bunch of the original art and sent it to Jack when Jack was living in California right before he signed with DC (like 1970). 

Edited June 19, 2021 by KCOComics

[KCOComics]

One comment on what Jack was entitled to and his contract.... 

That's an enormously complicated situation as well. I can tell you, I think Stan and Jack were both not treated fairly.  They were employees of a bigger company owned by Martin Goodman.  For all of their creations, they weren't owners of any of it, they were employees.

In 1964 Jack was probably getting paid more than any other comic artist, because he was Marvel comics at that time. So I don't think Jack was naive or treated unfairly based on how things were in the industry at that time.  

When Joe Simon sued Goodman for a piece of Captain American, Goodman asked Jack to back his employer (marvel) in court, which he did.  And Jack basically said he and Joe created Cap for the company and shouldn't own the character. 

With that said, I'm of the belief that Jack and Stan should have each gotten a stake in the company in the mid 60s.   Those guys did everything! Others like Ditko played a big role in the early days, but Kirby had his hands in literally every single comic that Marvel released. Either drawing it himself or drawing outlines for other artists to copy (besides Spidey which was pretty much all Ditko after AF15)...  Jack was doing it all.  

In the mid 60s, the comics started to outpace Goodman's magazine division and for Goodman to be running an 8 figure a year company, on the backs of two people, I don't think it's exactly fair to say Kirby got what he signed up for. No one had anticipated merchandizing and TV deals using Jack's art and Stan's stories. 

I don't blame Stan for anything that happened to Jack, because Stan, like Jack was just an employee. But when Goodman sold the company, Stan the marketer was more valuable to the buyers than Stan the writer or Jack the artist. Stan was the face of Marvel. And the new company (Perfect Film and Chemical Co) was more interested in the bottom line than who was drawing the comics.

It made Jack dispensable to Perfect Film, even if every one in the industry and every fan reading comics knew he was the King. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by KCOComics

[Aman619]

4 minutes ago, KCOComics said:

One comment on what Jack was entitled to and his contract.... 

That's an enormously complicated situation as well. I can tell you, I think Stan and Jack were both not treated fairly.  They were employees of a bigger company owned by Martin Goodman.  For all of their creations, they weren't owners of any of it, they were employees.

In 1964 Jack was probably getting paid more than any other comic artist, because he was Marvel comics at that time. So I don't think Jack was naive or treated unfairly based on how things were in the industry at that time.  

When Joe Simon sued Goodman for a piece of Captain American, Goodman asked Jack to back his employer (marvel) in court, which he did.  And Jack basically said he and Joe created Cap for the company and shouldn't own the character. 

With that said, I'm of the belief that Jack and Stan should have each gotten a stake in the company in the mid 60s.   Those guys did everything! Others like Ditko played a big role in the early days, but Kirby had his hands in literally every single comic that Marvel released. Either drawing it himself or drawing outlines for other artists to copy (besides Spidey which was pretty much all Ditko after AF15)...  Jack was doing it all.  

In the mid 60s, the comics started to outpace Goodman's magazine division and for Goodman to be running an 8 figure a year company, on the backs of two people, I don't think it's exactly fair to say Kirby got what he signed up for. No one had anticipated merchandizing and TV deals using Jack's art and Stan's stories. 

I don't blame Stan for anything that happened to Jack, because Stan, like Jack was just an employee. But when Goodman sold the company, Stan the marketer was more valuable to the buyers than Stan the writer or Jack the artist. Stan was the face of Marvel. And the new company (Perfect Film and Chemical Co) was more interested in the bottom line than who was drawing the comics.

It made Jack dispensable to Perfect Film, even if every one in the industry and every fan reading comics knew he was the King. 

 

 

A very even handed summary.   Yes, they were employees, and for the times, they were paid very well! (Jack especially as he turned out more pages than anyone else) They may have "felt" at some point in the mid 60s that they should get more for creating Marvel Comics, but either they never pressed their case strongly enough, or backed off, or it was just too late in the game and contented them selves with the earnings. (Stan told me he tried to buy Marvel after Goodman, and tried putting together the money, but failed.  Probably because he was fine to keep doing what he was doing without risk. But he said it wistfully.  Jack of course fell slighted by Stan, and in a weaker position than Stan, and a bit of a hothead... so he walked... over to DC as his solution.  As you said, Stan was the company man, and the face and therefore always valuable to Marvels owners.   No one was going to "give" them a stake in the company!  If there was ever a chance it would have been as they created FF.  Walking in with it and demanding a piece of it.   But that comic was not imaginable as the beginning of something.  Rather just the next piece of monthly carp to get to the printers on time. Same as all the other stories -- and characters --  they were pumping out weekly.  As you stated, as time wore on, Kirby just wasn't as important as he was in the beginning.   Its like if he had created the CAR for Henry Ford, 10years later they were fine-tuning the concept with a horde of other creators.  The ship had sailed.  Marvel was filled with bodies pumping out new concepts every month.  And revamping Jacks ideas.  Bottom line, Jack Kirby legend will live for centuries.  His family is now financially set.  Would it have been even better had he lived to see it?  Yes.  But not so bad compared to how all the rest of us bozos live out our forgettable lives. 

[kav]

2 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

I thought posting the photo from the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark would clearly come across as not serious.  Apologies for my poor attempt at humor.

I thought it was funny.

[greggy]

9 minutes ago, kav said:

I thought it was funny.

That's what she said. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, greggy said:

That's what she said. 

When did she say that? To who?

[mtlevy1]

2 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

I thought posting the photo from the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark would clearly come across as not serious.  Apologies for my poor attempt at humor.

Oops, it sailed by me...all good I hope - now I feel just a tad bad but for any new folk...

[KCOComics]

2 hours ago, Aman619 said:

A very even handed summary.   Yes, they were employees, and for the times, they were paid very well! (Jack especially as he turned out more pages than anyone else) They may have "felt" at some point in the mid 60s that they should get more for creating Marvel Comics, but either they never pressed their case strongly enough, or backed off, or it was just too late in the game and contented them selves with the earnings. (Stan told me he tried to buy Marvel after Goodman, and tried putting together the money, but failed.  Probably because he was fine to keep doing what he was doing without risk. But he said it wistfully.  Jack of course fell slighted by Stan, and in a weaker position than Stan, and a bit of a hothead... so he walked... over to DC as his solution.  As you said, Stan was the company man, and the face and therefore always valuable to Marvels owners.   No one was going to "give" them a stake in the company!  If there was ever a chance it would have been as they created FF.  Walking in with it and demanding a piece of it.   But that comic was not imaginable as the beginning of something.  Rather just the next piece of monthly carp to get to the printers on time. Same as all the other stories -- and characters --  they were pumping out weekly.  As you stated, as time wore on, Kirby just wasn't as important as he was in the beginning.   Its like if he had created the CAR for Henry Ford, 10years later they were fine-tuning the concept with a horde of other creators.  The ship had sailed.  Marvel was filled with bodies pumping out new concepts every month.  And revamping Jacks ideas.  Bottom line, Jack Kirby legend will live for centuries.  His family is now financially set.  Would it have been even better had he lived to see it?  Yes.  But not so bad compared to how all the rest of us bozos live out our forgettable lives. 

If I remember correctly, Goodman sold for $15M and Stan and Jack either directly or through lawyers told Martin they wanted a cut because of their contributions. Goodman was floored! 

He felt that he paid them really well and gave them free rein to create, while he was taking all the risk with publishers, the public  and marketing. 

And again, from a historical standpoint, it's important to remember that Goodman had gone through the highs of the 40s, followed by almost going bankrupt in the 50s after SOTI. So the the risk was very really to Goodman.

I only mention this to point out, that everyone has a perspective.  It's easy to look at Stan of Goodman as bad guys or Jack as getting exactly what he signed up for, but no one knew what was going to happen to your characters. 

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, KCOComics said:

If I remember correctly, Goodman sold for $15M and Stan and Jack either directly or through lawyers told Martin they wanted a cut because of their contributions. Goodman was floored! 

Jack Kirby never told Marvel (himself or through lawyers) that he thought he should get a piece of the sale of the company. That just didn't happen. I've never seen anyone claim that happened.

Stan, who's cousin Jean was married to Martin Goodman - was told by Goodman that he would be taken care of in the deal. Those are Stan's own words.

After the deal, Goodman felt slighted by Stan because he used his position of power to push out Goodman's own son, who was given authority in the sale, so that Stan could become publisher. Those are Roy Thomas' words. 

2 hours ago, KCOComics said:

He felt that he paid them really well and gave them free rein to create, while he was taking all the risk with publishers, the public  and marketing.

Not sure how much of a risk it was. Unless you mean changing publisher names and moving company addresses around to avoid paying taxes and confuse the IRS. The publishing part of it was just piggybacked off of his other divisions, and he didn't really do any marketing for his comics.

Stan got paid really well because he was on salary as Editor (and related to the publisher) and because he took credit for the writing. So he got paid for two jobs. Jack got paid really well because he worked 7 days a week, 10 hours a day, and drew about 3 pages a day for Marvel for almost a decade, not mention creating characters and comics that pulled them out of the financial mess Goodman had gotten them in.

Goodman wasn't interested in paying them 'really well', or have any interest in 'free reign to create' - he was sued three times in the pulp days for outright stealing content - he just simply didn't care about the comics. He kept it around for his wife's cousin to have a job. He made his money in magazines and books. The fact his comic book division became successful was as big a surprise to him as anyone.

2 hours ago, KCOComics said:

And again, from a historical standpoint, it's important to remember that Goodman had gone through the highs of the 40s, followed by almost going bankrupt in the 50s after SOTI. So the the risk was very really to Goodman.

Well... Goodman's poor business decision's led to his problems, not SOTI. He sold his distribution company - made a cheaper deal with a new one that ended up getting shut down - and then had to rely on DC's distributor, who put restrictions on them - to be able to put out their books.

Goodman, Archie Comics, and DC had effectively put EC Comics out of business with the wording of the Comics Code, giving themselves an easy street after SOTI. Goodman just screwed it all up with a horrible business deal.

2 hours ago, KCOComics said:

I only mention this to point out, that everyone has a perspective.  It's easy to look at Stan of Goodman as bad guys or Jack as getting exactly what he signed up for, but no one knew what was going to happen to your characters. 

Yes and no.

As the characters that Jack helped create began to get interest from merchandisers and be a part of cartoons, he saw the money start rolling in and thought, "Hey, shouldn't I be included in this success?" Remember, Stan had to talk Jack into being a 'team'. Jack (with Joe Simon) had already been screwed over by Goodman once (with Captain America in the 40's). Jack came back to Marvel in '57 and did his own stories, pre-Superhero. Stan just Edited, but Stan eventually talked him into being a 'team'. But the financial benefit was being seen by Stan now, who was getting paid to edit and to 'write' in the Marvel Method, while Jack was still be paid just to 'draw' even though his part in the creative process included so much more ) including doing layouts for other artists because his 'style' was helping sell the comics). 

Stan was seeing the benefit... naturally Jack thought he should too.

Yeah, he got a page rate increase***, but Stan was being seen as the creator of these characters. 

To keep the gravy train rolling, Stan made Jack promises that he would talk to Martin... but then the Tribune article came out... Ditko left, and he warned Kirby... Kirby held on, hoping Stan would do him right...

A lot of people here say, "Oh he could've left any time!", "No one forced him to stay!"

True. Just think if he'd have left when Ditko did. No Inhumans. No Galactus Trilogy. No Black Panther. No Warlock. 

The Marvel Universe might've died right there.

 

 

***The way John Buscema remembers it, they CUT his pay rate at the end:

BUSCEMA: This is again something told to me; I don't remember by who. Well, Jack Kirby was very fast. Martin Goodman was upset that Jack Kirby was making so much money. He felt, "Kirby's turning out so much work, let's cut his rate." That's when Jack left Marvel and went over to DC. This is the story that was told to me.

[KCOComics]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

Jack Kirby never told Marvel (himself or through lawyers) that he thought he should get a piece of the sale of the company. That just didn't happen. I've never seen anyone claim that happened.

Stan, who's cousin Jean was married to Martin Goodman - was told by Goodman that he would be taken care of in the deal. Those are Stan's own words.

After the deal, Goodman felt slighted by Stan because he used his position of power to push out Goodman's own son, who was given authority in the sale, so that Stan could become publisher. Those are Roy Thomas' words. 

Not sure how much of a risk it was. Unless you mean changing publisher names and moving company addresses around to avoid paying taxes and confuse the IRS. The publishing part of it was just piggybacked off of his other divisions, and he didn't really do any marketing for his comics.

Stan got paid really well because he was on salary as Editor (and related to the publisher) and because he took credit for the writing. So he got paid for two jobs. Jack got paid really well because he worked 7 days a week, 10 hours a day, and drew about 3 pages a day for Marvel for almost a decade, not mention creating characters and comics that pulled them out of the financial mess Goodman had gotten them in.

Goodman wasn't interested in paying them 'really well', or have any interest in 'free reign to create' - he was sued three times in the pulp days for outright stealing content - he just simply didn't care about the comics. He kept it around for his wife's cousin to have a job. He made his money in magazines and books. The fact his comic book division became successful was as big a surprise to him as anyone.

Well... Goodman's poor business decision's led to his problems, not SOTI. He sold his distribution company - made a cheaper deal with a new one that ended up getting shut down - and then had to rely on DC's distributor, who put restrictions on them - to be able to put out their books.

Goodman, Archie Comics, and DC had effectively put EC Comics out of business with the wording of the Comics Code, giving themselves an easy street after SOTI. Goodman just screwed it all up with a horrible business deal.

Yes and no.

As the characters that Jack helped create began to get interest from merchandisers and be a part of cartoons, he saw the money start rolling in and thought, "Hey, shouldn't I be included in this success?" Remember, Stan had to talk Jack into being a 'team'. Jack (with Joe Simon) had already been screwed over by Goodman once (with Captain America in the 40's). Jack came back to Marvel in '57 and did his own stories, pre-Superhero. Stan just Edited, but Stan eventually talked him into being a 'team'. But the financial benefit was being seen by Stan now, who was getting paid to edit and to 'write' in the Marvel Method, while Jack was still be paid just to 'draw' even though his part in the creative process included so much more ) including doing layouts for other artists because his 'style' was helping sell the comics). 

Stan was seeing the benefit... naturally Jack thought he should too.

Yeah, he got a page rate increase***, but Stan was being seen as the creator of these characters. 

To keep the gravy train rolling, Stan made Jack promises that he would talk to Martin... but then the Tribune article came out... Ditko left, and he warned Kirby... Kirby held on, hoping Stan would do him right...

A lot of people here say, "Oh he could've left any time!", "No one forced him to stay!"

True. Just think if he'd have left when Ditko did. No Inhumans. No Galactus Trilogy. No Black Panther. No Warlock. 

The Marvel Universe might've died right there.

 

 

***The way John Buscema remembers it, they CUT his pay rate at the end:

BUSCEMA: This is again something told to me; I don't remember by who. Well, Jack Kirby was very fast. Martin Goodman was upset that Jack Kirby was making so much money. He felt, "Kirby's turning out so much work, let's cut his rate." That's when Jack left Marvel and went over to DC. This is the story that was told to me.

All fair points.  

I don't think Goodman was necessiraly a bad business man and after the code, comics simply weren't making money for anyone.  That's why the vast majority of publishers went out of business. 

I also think you down play Stan a bit. No doubt Jack was turning out an unbelievable amount of work, but so was Stan. Stan was doing the writing and editing, but also handling the marketing, traveling the college circuits and running the business... Hiring and firing. Especially in those early days.

I don't think anyone is an outright villain in this story. Goodman could have done more for Jack. Could have paid him better or given him rights to his creations... But that's also not how business was done in those days and it's hard to apply a 21st century lense to business practices from 60 years ago. 

Siegal and Schuster didn't own Superman or make extraordinary profits from him. Finger and Kane didn't own Batman, and all those Timely legends - Everett, Simon, Burgos - didn't own CA, Torch or Subby.

So I think Kirby was compensated fairly based on the precedent in the industry. We all can look at that today and say it was unfair.. and it wasn't.  

 

[KCOComics]

2 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Jack Kirby never told Marvel (himself or through lawyers) that he thought he should get a piece of the sale of the company. That just didn't happen. I've never seen anyone claim that happened.

 

I did go back and try to research where I read this...and it's been a long time since I read this book, but when the company sold, everyone, including Stan felt they were entitled to a portion of the sale.  That's where Goodman got angry. He needed to resign the talent for the sale of the company and that's where he promised Stan he would "never want for anything". Stan was the face of Marvel. 

Kirby went into his contract negotiation asking for a raise and residuals, but instead only received a loan from Goodman's company that he had to pay back at a 6% interest rate. 

I can post pictures of the pages if you would like, but these are old fashion books on paper.. kind of like comic books before slabs. 

[MetalPSI]

Find it hilarious that people want to believe a liar so badly, yet know they are a liar.

[Bird]

the discussion has become analogous to the event!

A discussion about the original Marvel art (and any discussion about early Marvel is really mostly, but not all, about Jack) is now subsumed under a larger discussion of artist's rights; contract disputes; anger, mistrust and backstabbing just as the issue of the physical art was one part of a much larger issue between artists (e.g. Jack) and their employers over compensation for contributions both current and past. And in many ways the art is the simplest issue to resolve but it wasn't viewed in isolation.

 

Here is another thought...Jack Kirby couldn't exist today! These guys broke their backs over the drawing board for decades. Now the ballgame is so different that we get these short bursts of careers when people create a hit property. Mark Millar's stuff was very good and well received but he is no fool business wise so his time is not devoted to just comics, he is a big picture guy (just as Jack would be). And the artists! Look at just the Mark Millar artists...I assume they get a nice share as cocreators so they get to chill a little instead of feeling the need to generate content every single day all day like Jack and others. (Carmine Infantino was so hunched over at shows! Stretch your backs artists!) I would prefer monthly comics from those guys! As well as Joe Mad!!! James Jean! Aron Weisenfeld!!! Anyway, I digress.

 

 

[MetalPSI]

Look at Den Beauvais 

[Prince Namor]

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

All fair points.  

I don't think Goodman was necessiraly a bad business man and after the code,

He wasn't. He made a fortune. He just didn't care about comics and made one seriously bad business decision that almost put that division of his company out of business. Until Jack Kirby saved him.

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

comics simply weren't making money for anyone.  That's why the vast majority of publishers went out of business.

A lot of publishers went out of business, but plenty of others were making money and thrived after the Code went into effect. 

DC Comics went from about 25 titles a month in the early to mid-50's to over 30 a month in the late 50's. By 1960, Superman was still averaging 800,000 copies sold per issue - Batman 500,000, with 5 other Superman titles averaging half a million copies per month.

Dell Comics comics had 45 monthly titles in by the late 50's (up from 25 a mont pre-code) and in 1960, both Uncle Scrooge and Walt Disney's Comics & Stories averaged a MILLION copies per month. 

Archie Comics expanded after the Code, adding Archie's Pals n Gals, Katy's Keene's Fashion Book (a 2nd Katy Keene title), Pat the Brat, Lil Jinx, Little Archie, and continued pumping out Annuals and off shoots on a regular basis. By 1960, Archie Comics was still averaging almost half a million copies per issue.

Atlas/Marvel was just fine after the Code. Their MOO had always been to rip off and duplicate what others had done - and in the bull market had as many as 35-40 titles a month. By 1956/1957, TWO YEARS into the Code they were still churning out a much as 40 books a month! Until Goodman made his deal and it dropped to EIGHT in the summer of 1957.

The SPECIFIC wording of the Comics Code, schemed together by these men, made their business' thrive after they put many others out of work. Goodman just made a bonehead move and it cost him. Until Jack Kirby saved him.

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

I also think you down play Stan a bit. No doubt Jack was turning out an unbelievable amount of work, but so was Stan. Stan was doing the writing and editing, but also handling the marketing, traveling the college circuits and running the business... Hiring and firing. Especially in those early days.

Stan worked his off in those days. He didn't work 7 days a week, 10 hours a day at the drawing board, but he worked hard. He had a wife who demanded a luxurious lifestyle. And he wasn't a writer, at least not at that point - he wrote dialogue for artists' work, while editing and brainstorming ideas. 

And his regular college campus appearances didn't start until after Ditko left and he was made to be seen as the force behind the creative side of Marvel in the infamous Tribune article. 

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

I don't think anyone is an outright villain in this story. Goodman could have done more for Jack. Could have paid him better or given him rights to his creations... But that's also not how business was done in those days and it's hard to apply a 21st century lense to business practices from 60 years ago.

Honesty and good will are easy to apply to any generation. Goodman and Lee were saved by Kirby's talent. Plain and simple. They'd be a footnote in history if Jack Kirby hadn't returned to Marvel in the summer of 1958.

Marvel put out ZERO books on the newsstand in August 1958. Joe Maneely, the only workhorse Stan still had to draw the books had died and Marvel was looking as if it was going to close shop.

Jack Kirby walking in the door changed all of that. 

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

Siegal and Schuster didn't own Superman or make extraordinary profits from him.

Yes they eventually did. After the news of the first Superman movie in the mid70's (and stories of their poverty filled lives, and Shuster going blind reached the news), DC Comics set them up with a yearly pay, proper medical benefits and future credits in all use of the character - in exchange for them never again contesting ownership. Marvel would follow up on this with Jack... oh about 40 years later.

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

Finger and Kane didn't own Batman,

Kane made lots of money off of his deal with DC and STILL has his name on the character as creator to this day. Bill Finger got the screwed, but Kane made a nice living and a celebrity status from his deal. He's vilified for it. He 'Stan Lee'd' his situation and shafted the real creative force behind the character and his stories, but at least he could draw. Maybe he just wasn't as likable as Stan. 

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

and all those Timely legends - Everett, Simon, Burgos - didn't own CA, Torch or Subby.

Yes, Goodman screwed them all. All created outside of Marvel Comics - all stolen by Goodman.

3 hours ago, KCOComics said:

So I think Kirby was compensated fairly based on the precedent in the industry. We all can look at that today and say it was unfair.. and it wasn't.  

They'd have been a footnote in the industry if not for Jack Kirby. They owed him more than what was a fair.

A real man would've recognized it and made it right.

This whole 'business is business' bunch of bull and 'he should've known' is in direct contrast to the way the people on this forum act when someone buys a comic collection for a song and makes a fortune on it - they all criticize him and point fingers and pretend their all holy... what is the difference? 

You rip off an old lady for an Action Comics #1 sale or you rip off the greatest creative force in the history of comics.... it's all the same thing to me. 

A man's word is a man's word. A friend's word is a friend's word. A handshake should mean something. What's right is right. Geneivat da'at!!!

[mrc]

43 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

They'd have been a footnote in the industry if not for Jack Kirby. They owed him more than what was a fair.

A real man would've recognized it and made it right.

This whole 'business is business' bunch of bull and 'he should've known' is in direct contrast to the way the people on this forum act when someone buys a comic collection for a song and makes a fortune on it - they all criticize him and point fingers and pretend their all holy... what is the difference? 

You rip off an old lady for an Action Comics #1 sale or you rip off the greatest creative force in the history of comics.... it's all the same thing to me. 

A man's word is a man's word. A friend's word is a friend's word. A handshake should mean something. What's right is right. Geneivat da'at!!!

I'm afraid you simply don't seem to have any idea how the real world works.......pure hyperbole.

[Aman619]

yeah, but thats a good point about human nature:  that we all scream bloody murder when someone "steals" an Action 1 etc from the unknowing, yet argue about "business as usual" when its the comics business dealings in question.   But theres "fair" and theres reality.  Goodman was always the boss.  If Kirby didnt show up to save him, as you say (twice!) he would have kept going and things would have turned out differently, better (prob not) but somewhat worse, or Marvel would have closed shop.  Who knows?  Bosses dont GIVE AWAY equity --- even today --- its just not done out of the goodness of their hearts. Only when forced to, or its makes business sense.

All his life in comics Goodman operated by the set of rules that existed.  They all did. Its really silly to point and curse them for not being Mother Teresa to the employees. It may suck, but we are animals in a darwinian struggle for survival/success.  Stones and glass houses.

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Aman619 said:

yeah, but thats a good point about human nature:  that we all scream bloody murder when someone "steals" an Action 1 etc from the unknowing, yet argue about "business as usual" when its the comics business dealings in question.   But theres "fair" and theres reality.  Goodman was always the boss.  If Kirby didnt show up to save him, as you say (twice!) he would have kept going and things would have turned out differently, better (prob not) but somewhat worse, or Marvel would have closed shop.  Who knows?  Bosses dont GIVE AWAY equity --- even today --- its just not done out of the goodness of their hearts. Only when forced to, or its makes business sense.

All his life in comics Goodman operated by the set of rules that existed.  They all did. Its really silly to point and curse them for not being Mother Teresa to the employees. It may suck, but we are animals in a darwinian struggle for survival/success.  Stones and glass houses.

Yeah, how'd his 2nd comic company do?

[Aman619]

You tell me.  How well did ANY new comic publisher do in the 70s?  Guess you could say his past business practices didn’t endear him to the talent he would have needed to hit the ground running.  Or since he did get Adams and a bunch of current talent to do some work, guess the creative vision was lacking what the big 2 were satiating the market with already with known characters etc.  you make it sound like business is so easy.