Jack Kirby's Son Comments On New Stan Lee Documentary 3 3

[MrBedrock]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:32 PM, comicwiz said:

Without Kirby, there would be no Marvel. And more crying rivers named Stan.

This is not true. Without Kirby Marvel might have been horrible, but it would have been around. Without Lee it wouldn't have been around.

[Larryw7]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:50 PM, StillOnly25Cents said:

Roy Thomas weighs in

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/stan-lee-marvel-veteran-review-disney-doc-1235523843/

 

A whitewash by HouseRoy.

[jdandns]

I've tried to watch it twice this past weekend, but both times Disney+ kicked me out of the system, so I took it as a sign.

I still plan to watch it, though. I could use it after reading the devastating "True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee" by Abraham Riesman. 

As Roy Thomas suggests, though, a pair of documentaries on Kirby and Ditko would be most welcome, and Disney should bankroll them as a show of respect to each man. As is often the case, I have the feeling the truth of many of these things lies somewhere in between. 

[StillOnly25Cents]

from the Thomas guest column .....

Quote

Without Stan Lee, there might have been some good stories … some splendid art … but it’s highly unlike that there would have an overarching Marvel Universe.

was Lee not the first to come up with the editor footnotes/annotations referencing other events/appearances/flashbacks etc as well as speaking directly to the reader as well as giving printed flattering nicknames and call outs to the bullpen and such 

if so I 100% agree with that quote

[Dr Zen]

On 6/27/2023 at 4:32 PM, jdandns said:

I've tried to watch it twice this past weekend, but both times Disney+ kicked me out of the system, so I took it as a sign.

I still plan to watch it, though. I could use it after reading the devastating "True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee" by Abraham Riesman. 

As Roy Thomas suggests, though, a pair of documentaries on Kirby and Ditko would be most welcome, and Disney should bankroll them as a show of respect to each man. As is often the case, I have the feeling the truth of many of these things lies somewhere in between. 

Honestly, you are not missing much. It's every one of Stan's stories that we've heard a thousand times before. The only thing I had never seen before was clips of Stan's home movies.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/27/2023 at 6:08 PM, StillOnly25Cents said:

 

was Lee not the first to come up with the editor footnotes/annotations referencing other events/appearances/flashbacks etc as well as speaking directly to the reader as well as giving printed flattering nicknames and call outs to the bullpen and such 

if so I 100% agree with that quote

Uh... NO.

For one thing, EC Comics did this famously.

More importantly, Charles Biro did everything Stan did before Stan. Notably, John Romita Sr. and Roy Thomas have both helpfully pointed out how inspired by Biro that Stan was. And Golden Age artist Bob Futijani said in several interviews an anecdote he observed when he was in Biro's office and Biro complained that Stan was on the line, begging him for ideas. (Futijani had no reason to make this up and repeated it several times)

Biro did the message right to the reader on several of the covers with little messages like "we can't reveal the ending to this shock story, but you'll thank us when you reach it!", responded to letters in his letter pages with a loose, humorous style (a complimentary letter would get a response like, "you're getting my vote next time there's an election, pal"), and- I think- most importantly, Biro wrote right to the reader in his editorial style in the same manner Stan did. Keep in mind this dialogue, from a splash page, came out in the forties, not Stan's Silver Age sixties- read this in Stan's voice:

"Tree ripened fruit is tastier than a hot-house quickie! Daredevil takes it's time but gets there just as fast and stays longer and will continue to do so long as we retain our close touch with the desires of American's comic audience! This is no simple thing for some publishers to do- it necessitates having to concede that the average reader is above a moronic I.Q.- that he is on the whole, logical and has a brain to think with. The mistake of some of our competitors, evidenced by your countless letters that we have carefully digested, is that they underestimate your intelligence! We don't bat 1,000, but our average is constantly climbing. That proves we're on the right track. This Daredevil story is Evidence #1! I'm sure after you've read it, you'll see my point- and you are responsible! It was your wish- therefore, my command!  CHARLES BIRO"

See some common traits of Stan, picked up from Biro...

"concede that the average reader is above a moronic I.Q"- Stan constantly referenced the above average intelligence of the Marvel audience in dozens of interviews and would claim that "his Publisher" told him "moronic" adults and small children read comics so not to use big words.

"the mistake of some of our competitors"-  Stan also reinforced that the distinguished competition simply underestimated the sophisticated reader that wanted characters with real problems, and cited almost this same phrase more than once.

"they underestimate your intelligence!"-   This was something Stan also struck on, with Amazing Adult Fantasy even getting the tagline, "the Magazine that respects your intelligence!"

"we don't bat 1,000 but our average is always climbing..."   This pseudo-humility speak was something Biro used often and Stan also used, even on covers- "don't frustrate us, you've got to read it!" 

"and you are responsible!"-  Biro was canny in making his customers feel they were part of an exclusive club of people who were smarter than the "usual" comic reader- another thing Stan wisely latched onto.

I'm not saying Stan was wrong to be inspired or did these things badly. You simply said that, as far as you knew, Stan was the first person to do all of these things. He wasn't. And there's more than this but I'll stop here.
 

 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/27/2023 at 4:37 PM, Larryw7 said:

A whitewash by HouseRoy.

Roy Thomas's current grift is to literally bill himself on convention flyers as "Stan Lee's chosen heir and protege!", you can't make it up. Part of this is because his "manager" (whose name is literally mentioned numerous times in any article about Roy Thomas) realized they can make a profit by playing up this angle. And changing his tune- now Roy claims credit for being the "creator" of Wolverine, the "creator" of Storm, etc.- well, that makes Martin Goodman the "creator" of the Fantastic Four.

Too many fans don't follow history and it's not hard. When Roy left Marvel in 1980 he had very critical things to say about Stan and so forth and said that he had been backstabbed. When CRISIS hit DC and Roy realized he didn't have the clout he'd had before, he went back to Marvel- and when that dried up, Stan saved him by making him his ghostwriter for 20 years. So it's in Roy's vested interest to adopt this protect-the-corporate-narrative tone.

 

[comicwiz]

On 6/27/2023 at 2:21 PM, MrBedrock said:

This is not true. Without Kirby Marvel might have been horrible, but it would have been around. Without Lee it wouldn't have been around.

In Kirby's retelling, he describes finding Stan sobbing because Goodman was shutting the comic division down in 1961. Unless you don't believe what Kirby retells, then your point is a fair one. But I believe Kirby, so this notion of Marvel being around is plausible, but not likely after 1961 without Kirby's intervention

And it wasn't only according to Kirby's recollection of events tha took place in 1961. If not for Charles Lippincott agreeing to front Marvel for the first 5 issues of Star Wars, Marvel would have been bankrupt in 1977. If we don't take Kirby's word for it, then there's plenty of references to how Star Wars saved Marvel. And the latter example is an important one to draw on, not only to illustrate more than one occassion on the historical timeline where Marvel was on the brink, but also to call into question the effectiveness of Stan Lee at the helm, especially when one considers that it was necessary for an outside franchise (at a start-up stage of becoming a multi-billion dollar film and merchandising property) had to front a comic series in order for Marvel to remain solvent. 

This notion of Stan being sole 'creator' of the Marvel Universe just isn't based on any truth. I could have an idea to build a house. Buy the lot. And say I'm going to build a house on it. But unless I hire people to draw out the build, devise a building plan, have it approved first by an engineer I appoint, and then it's reviewed by engineers at the building department of the town/city/state I'm building in, that idea is nothing more than just that. An idea. The plan, even after it's prepared by knowledgeable folks, with an expertise for this sort of thing, could be rejected, and in need of revision or be outright scrapped. So what does that say about the original idea when someone else tells you it's not viable? Or it's not approved? Or it is unsafe? Or doesn't meet environmental standards for nearby conservation efforts?

It may be a crude example, but this is why I find the whole notion of an "idea" being the be-all-end-all of what constitutes a creator a flawed argument. This sort of thing is often contested in the music industry as well, and there's plenty of examples where decisions reach the courts, and judgements are made, that may still remain in dispute by band members, and this happens often with when band members are caught in a dispute with the heirs of an artist who passed away. 

For all these reasons and more, I don't think Marvel would have existed if Kirby didn't rescue Goodman and Lee in 1961.

Edited June 29, 2023 by comicwiz

[MrBedrock]

On 6/28/2023 at 1:56 PM, comicwiz said:

For all these reasons and more, I don't think Marvel would have existed if Kirby didn't rescue Goodman and Lee in 1961.

So basically you choose to believe what you want to believe. That is also fair.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/28/2023 at 2:56 PM, comicwiz said:

In Kirby's retelling, he describes finding Stan sobbing because Goodman was shutting the comic division down in 1961. Unless you don't believe what Kirby retells, then your point is a fair one. But I believe Kirby, so this notion of Marvel being around is plausible, but not likely after 1961 without Kirby's intervention

 

To clarify, Kirby went back a couple years before 1961. 1961 is just when the Fantastic Four launches.

I bring that up also because the noted historian Dr. Michael Vassalo, who has intensely researched the day to day goings of Atlas/Marvel and gone through every existing report, log, voucher, etc. made an incredible discovery a couple years ago: the week that Kirby goes back in to Marvel coincides with the week after Joe Manleey tragically died.

So it's completely valid that Kirby would have found Stan a little weepy and teary-eyed- his friend and collaborator was just killed in a horrific subway accident. This all lined up and is documented (there are so many time stamped documents from all of Goodman's companies it's amazing that fans don't know about them and how they help prove Kirby's case while proving nothing for Stan's), it's just the kind of history and research you don't find in "Son of Origins" or Wizard Magazine.

[shadroch]

Jack just happened to show up the week after Manleey died.  Just a coincidence. 

[bc]

On 6/28/2023 at 6:01 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

To clarify, Kirby went back a couple years before 1961. 1961 is just when the Fantastic Four launches.

I bring that up also because the noted historian Dr. Michael Vassalo, who has intensely researched the day to day goings of Atlas/Marvel and gone through every existing report, log, voucher, etc. made an incredible discovery a couple years ago: the week that Kirby goes back in to Marvel coincides with the week after Joe Manleey tragically died.

So it's completely valid that Kirby would have found Stan a little weepy and teary-eyed- his friend and collaborator was just killed in a horrific subway accident. This all lined up and is documented (there are so many time stamped documents from all of Goodman's companies it's amazing that fans don't know about them and how they help prove Kirby's case while proving nothing for Stan's), it's just the kind of history and research you don't find in "Son of Origins" or Wizard Magazine.

Stumbled upon Dr. Vassalo's blogs a few years ago while researching some job codes 

The one document that didn't seem to survive is the contract with IND - the one that was reported to limit Atlas to 8 titles a month and factored into some of the lore of the era.

-bc

[Lazyboy]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:37 PM, Larryw7 said:

A whitewash by HouseRoy.

Maybe the rumors are true and Roy really did have Stan's removed after his death so he could continue putting it in his mouth.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/28/2023 at 6:12 PM, shadroch said:

Jack just happened to show up the week after Manleey died.  Just a coincidence. 

It isn't a coincidence whatsoever once you realize that Kirby wouldn't "just happen to show up". Stan called him.

The vouchers and scheduling sheets (much of which have survived, frantic ones! Which paint a different trajectory than the one you clutch onto) which have been closely documented and archived by Dr. Vassallo, show that Kirby's first story back is on the schedule literally almost the following week after Maneely's death. Maneely dying was not going to make Goodman stop the presses.

Stan Goldberg reiterated Kirby's almost immediate arrival at a live event at the Society of Illustrators ("Jack showed up very shortly thereafter, and thank goodness") and- hey, Shad... maybe Dr. Vassallo doesn't know what he's talking about with his research. It's possible! But, if so, it's very odd that Marvel themselves commission him to not only write most of the introductions for their Atlas Age Masterwork Editions but *also* have him in charge of selection and editing and packaging the upcoming Atlas Era collections from Fantagraphics! Maybe they're hiring this guy for years now because he really IS the most certified scholar and historian of early Marvel?? Gosh. Just a coincidence. 

I understand this is all psychologically troubling for someone who both needs to preserve their youthful nostalgia in old age and as someone who likely is selling those exclusive Stan signed books for triple the price! But fear not, pilgrim- the Merry Marvel Marching Society continues onward! Facts and literal documented evidence be damned! Dare... dare I say it?? (in a voice choked with emotion): Excelsior! 

[shadroch]

On 6/28/2023 at 4:22 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

It isn't a coincidence whatsoever once you realize that Kirby wouldn't "just happen to show up". Stan called him.

The vouchers and scheduling sheets (much of which have survived, frantic ones! Which paint a different trajectory than the one you clutch onto) which have been closely documented and archived by Dr. Vassallo, show that Kirby's first story back is on the schedule literally almost the following week after Maneely's death. Maneely dying was not going to make Goodman stop the presses.

Stan Goldberg reiterated Kirby's almost immediate arrival at a live event at the Society of Illustrators ("Jack showed up very shortly thereafter, and thank goodness") and- hey, Shad... maybe Dr. Vassallo doesn't know what he's talking about with his research. It's possible! But, if so, it's very odd that Marvel themselves commission him to not only write most of the introductions for their Atlas Age Masterwork Editions but *also* have him in charge of selection and editing and packaging the upcoming Atlas Era collections from Fantagraphics! Maybe they're hiring this guy for years now because he really IS the most certified scholar and historian of early Marvel?? Gosh. Just a coincidence. 

I understand this is all psychologically troubling for someone who both needs to preserve their youthful nostalgia in old age and as someone who likely is selling those exclusive Stan signed books for triple the price! But fear not, pilgrim- the Merry Marvel Marching Society continues onward! Facts and literal documented evidence be damned! Dare... dare I say it?? (in a voice choked with emotion): Excelsior! 

I don't own any autographed comics, and I never sold signature series, so I m going to conclude you have no problems running your mouth about many things you don't know anything about.  My most treasured piece of art was a litho triple signed by Stan, Joe, and Jack and I only parted with it as it was the stumbling block in six figure deal.  Other than a few Alex Ross DC lithos, my only remaining artwork is a Schomburg flyer he did for a local show in Oregon in the 1970s. Someone had the forethought to put aside 100 copies for him to sign.

What is the saying? If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. When neither are, attack the people. 

Why anyone takes anything Neal Kirby says seriously is beyond me.  I might as well get my facts from Joanne Lee.  When you are 67 and your main achievement in life is having had a famous father, I'm not sure what kind of witness you are supposed to be. 

[NewWorldOrder]

IMO the Marvel universe would not have worked without any of these guys.

When it comes to Spider-Man...

Stan Lee = Phil Jackson

Jack Kirby = Michael Jordan

John Romita= Scottie Pippen

Steve Ditko = Dennis Rodman

Stan needed Jack to create Spider-man.  Stan then needed Ditko and Romita to create the household name.

Then years later Todd McFarlane (Kobe Bryant) modernized Spider-Man's art-form.

Oh my little analogy doesn't make sense to you?  Tough, it makes perfect sense to me

End of the day it's all hearsay what truly happened.  I just know that a great bunch of individuals got together and came up some of the coolest stories and characters in American history.  I celebrate them all! (some with higher levels of praise, but you get what I am saying)

Edited June 28, 2023 by NewWorldOrder

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/28/2023 at 7:40 PM, shadroch said:

I don't own any autographed comics, and I never sold signature series, so I m going to conclude you have no problems running your mouth about many things you don't know anything about.  My most treasured piece of art was a litho triple signed by Stan, Joe, and Jack and I only parted with it as it was the stumbling block in six figure deal.  Other than a few Alex Ross DC lithos, my only remaining artwork is a Schomburg flyer he did for a local show in Oregon in the 1970s. Someone had the forethought to put aside 100 copies for him to sign.

What is the saying? If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. When neither are, attack the people. 

Why anyone takes anything Neal Kirby says seriously is beyond me.  I might as well get my facts from Joanne Lee.  When you are 67 and your main achievement in life is having had a famous father, I'm not sure what kind of witness you are supposed to be. 

I thought you were made of sturdier stuff Shad, I meant the autographed comics stuff as light hearted ribbing. I'll be more sensitive next time, my apologies.

JL Mask has a business letter from Atlas from June 16th, 1958. It indicates that Martin Goodman called a meeting on June 13th, 1958 to shut down the comics line.

Michael Vassallo used MR. Ayer's extensive and by-the-date work ledger to pinpoint Jack Kirby coming back the week after June 8th.

Joe Maneely died on June 8th.

The facts exist, the evidence exists. I could care less what Neal Kirby says or doesn't say- his comments actually have nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen, so aren't needed. Again, ignoring the truth out of nostalgia is ridiculous.

I didn't attack anyone. You respond to my posts with sarcasm first, expect the receipt. See you at the cons.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/28/2023 at 7:53 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

IMO the Marvel universe would not have worked without any of these guys.

When it comes to Spider-Man...

Stan Lee = Phil Jackson

Jack Kirby = Michael Jordan

John Romita= Scottie Pippen

Steve Ditko = Dennis Rodman

Stan needed Jack to create Spider-man.  Stan then needed Ditko and Romita to create the household name.

Then years later Todd McFarlane (Kobe Bryant) modernized Spider-Man's art-form.

Oh my little analogy doesn't make sense to you?  Tough, it makes perfect sense to me

End of the day it's all hearsay what truly happened.  I just know that a great bunch of individuals got together and came up some of the coolest stories and characters in American history.  I celebrate them all! (some with higher levels of praise, but you get what I am saying)

Again... this is not the point. Maybe in a thread about personal opinions it would be.

I am not saying the Marvel Universe wouldn't have worked without all of those guys. Of course it wouldn't have. Add MARTIN GOODMAN to the top of the list or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't know why people keep doing this simplifying thing, unless it's a deflection... also, adding "In my opinion..." is irrelevant to a factual discussion. Is it our opinion that the sun comes up in the morning, or does it just do that regardless?

This is not what some of us are trying to get across. It's not that Stan doesn't deserve credit. He deserves a lot! It's that Stan gets credit for stuff he didn't do, and it's because of corporate ip laws that this continues.

That's all. It's about specific credit. If Joe Sinnott got credit for Artie Simek's lettering, it'd be just as worthy to point out that no, that's not true.

This is a diversionary tactic that people that don't want to face the truth about Stan's career often go to- add also "the Fourth World dialogue was clunky! wahh!" etc. etc.- that's not the point. Subjective taste doesn't matter. People getting undue credit does.

[Aman619]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:08 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

 

This is a diversionary tactic that people that don't want to face the truth about Stan's career often go to- add also "the Fourth World dialogue was clunky! wahh!" etc. etc.- that's not the point. Subjective taste doesn't matter. People getting undue credit does.

well, as someone who read all the marvels and DCs as they came out back then (maybe you did too)  I read Jacks art and concepts with Stans words and it was much better comics than Jacks DC concepts and art and HIS words.  "Clunky" was the exact word we used back then. "Stiff" was another.  So the conclusion has been that Kirby's art and concepts fall flat when the words dont live up to them, like when Stan was editing and writing them.  We all used to say back then we loved comics for the art!  But we READ the stories and some moved us, and others didnt.  In some, the words added to the whole, in others they did not, and even took away from the art and concepts.  This was our Opinion yes. But this was way before Jacks slights became well known by us readers/collectors.  Based on the comics themselves, the Fourth World DCs were underwhelming.  (Royer's inking was cool, but also lacked the tightness and seriousness of the Marvel inkers like Sinnott etc It looked too slick and loose.  anyway...

[shadroch]

On 6/28/2023 at 8:49 PM, Aman619 said:

well, as someone who read all the marvels and DCs as they came out back then (maybe you did too)  I read Jacks art and concepts with Stans words and it was much better comics than Jacks DC concepts and art and HIS words.  "Clunky" was the exact word we used back then. "Stiff" was another.  So the conclusion has been that Kirby's art and concepts fall flat when the words dont live up to them, like when Stan was editing and writing them.  We all used to say back then we loved comics for the art!  But we READ the stories and some moved us, and others didnt.  In some, the words added to the whole, in others they did not, and even took away from the art and concepts.  This was our Opinion yes. But this was way before Jacks slights became well known by us readers/collectors.  Based on the comics themselves, the Fourth World DCs were underwhelming.  (Royer's inking was cool, but also lacked the tightness and seriousness of the Marvel inkers like Sinnott etc It looked too slick and loose.  anyway...

Kirby simply did his best work when using the Marvel Method.  Of course, as bad as the Fourth World was, his work when he returned to Marvel as a writer/artist was sadder.  I wonder if Stan could have made something out of Moon Boy and Devil Dinosaur?  

If only they'd worked together on Hunger Dogs instead of that Surfer novel.

Edited June 29, 2023 by shadroch