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

[DeadpoolJr.]

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.

Is this info online, or published somewhere? It sounds interesting.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/28/2023 at 11:49 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...

Again, that's fine... that isn't the point of the argument here, the issue we are discussing is that Stan gets credit for things he didn't do. Maybe there's a thread about Fourth World dialogue or Stan and Jack working without each other we could talk about this on.

Edited June 29, 2023 by lordbyroncomics
skipped word

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 2:43 AM, DeadpoolJr. said:

Is this info online, or published somewhere? It sounds interesting.

It is indeed and is worth pursuing. I'd suggest looking at The Marvel Method group on Facebook and the sites Timely-Atlas-Comics, AccordingtoKirby as well as various articles and interviews from over the years involving Golden and Silver Age creators. Ger Aperdorn also did an exhaustive report of Stan's attempts and failures to break away from Martin Goodman in Alter Ego #150, and 'Stan Lee Conversations' and various interviews with The Man over the decades.

A compelling and often neglected thread in the overall Stan story is how much he changed his tune after Goodman sold Marvel and Stan finally became corporate. Suddenly, he had stability and he changed his tune on so many things- notably, that Kirby and Ditko were just "the artists I selected to draw my story"- he does not say this before then. And, in 1971, one year before that career change occurs, Stan Lee said this:

"I would say that the comic book market is the worst market that there is on the face of the earth for creative talent, and the reasons are numberless and legion. I have had many talented people ask me how to get into the comic book business. If they were talented enough, the first answer I would give them is, why would you want to get into the comic book business? Because even if you succeed, even if you reach what might be considered the pinnacle of success in comics, you will be less successful, less secure, and less effective than if you are just an average practitioner of your art in television, radio, movies, or what have you. It is a business in which the creator, as was mentioned before, owns nothing of his creation. The publisher owns it… … Unfortunately, in the comic field, the artist, the writer, and the editor, if you will, are the most helpless people in the world."

 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 2:03 AM, shadroch said:

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.

Again, that's all subjective and according to personal taste. The issue with The Marvel Method as a system is that it also operated as a kickback scheme of sorts as the Artist plotted and drove the stories completely yet didn't get paid for the plotting. I like those Silver Age stories too, but I'm not talking about it as a creative device but in how it harmed the artists. For a community here as concerned with profits and sales as it is, I'm amazed there's so little empathy for working artists not getting paid for all their work.

I was just reading how Princeton invited Stan to speak at their campus in 1966. They'd written him in 1965, excitedly asking why he'd included their campus in an issue of FF. Stan literally responds he had no idea and it's how Jack delivered the finished story to him. There are literally dozens of examples of this- Stan not knowing where the story he was going. Did he do some great work in capturing a tone and a line-wide flavor? Absolutely. It's not the case.

[jimjum12]

On 6/28/2023 at 7:22 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

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

This may or may not be true, as I haven't seen any phone records, but I do know that Mort Weissinger(DC's big kahuna) did not care for Kirby and Jack wasn't making much of a living there. 

It probably wouldn't have been long before Jack was either driving a taxi or working for Charlton ... and the Taxi would have probably have paid better.

I also notice a curious absence of information in this "debate" about Kirby's failed publishing ventures. 

GOD BLESS ...

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... Kirby was in perpetual litigation with Marvel trying to invalidate his "work for hire" contract over the last couple decades of his life, what else is he going to say other than he did it all ?

Edited June 29, 2023 by jimjum12

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 3:27 AM, jimjum12 said:

This may or may not be true, as I haven't seen any phone records, but I do know that Mort Weissinger(DC's big kahuna) did not care for Kirby and Jack wasn't making much of a living there. 

It probably wouldn't have been long before Jack was either driving a taxi or working for Charlton ... and the Taxi would have probably have paid better.

I also notice a curious absence of information in this "debate" about Kirby's failed publishing ventures. 

GOD BLESS ...

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... Kirby was in perpetual litigation with Marvel trying to invalidate his "work for hire" contract over the last couple decades of his life, what else is he going to say other than he did it all ?

Thanks for the blessings, Jim!

- probably would have been driving a taxi is speculative, so I hope you won't be hurt if I don't explore the possibilities of that.

- because you haven't seen any records doesn't mean records don't exist. See above for existing inner memos for a business meeting in June 1958. Also, since Kirby was such a struggling artist do you think- since we're speculating and all- that he'd leave Long Island for Manhattan without knowing Stan would be there?

- the absence of information about Kirby's failed publishing ventures isn't "curious", Jim is just doing a passive-aggressive spin here which aligns with much of his swarmy, disrespectful tone. I swear, these guys would never speak to a man in person the way they do on these boards so let's let them enjoy it.

Yes, Kirby had some failed ventures like the Sky Masters strip. It isn't brought up because it's not relevant to the discussion (why quote "debate" when this isn't a debate? man, such obvious tactics to try to instigate- aren't you like 60?), it's worth noting that Stan's failed ventures (since you wanna bring it up) DWARF Kirby's significantly. Again, see Alter Ego #150 in which ALL of Stan's ventures fail painfully, to the point where he enlists his wife Joan to call various distributors to pretend to be an excited reader (I'm unsure that Kirby ever got his wife to resort to such tactics) and then forges multiple letters of support from Pete Morsi and Artie Simek's daughter.

None of this is relevant to Stan getting credit for complete creation. Again, this is the issue. Stan was very talented and an incredible Editor and spokesman for comics. No one disputes that.

Let's say that Kirby didn't sell millions in the Golden Age and got his byline on covers back then and didn't invent the Romance Genre with Joe Simon and so forth. Let's say EVERYTHING failed. Let's say Jimbo, a friend of the Messiah himself, is right and Kirby was about to become a CAB DRIVER- not a shameful profession, I might add- let's say that was all true.

.... does it excuse Stan Lee's theft of credit?? Hmm.. there's a Jesus parable in there somewhere, ain't there?

[jimjum12]

On 6/29/2023 at 4:03 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

Thanks for the blessings, Jim!

- probably would have been driving a taxi is speculative, so I hope you won't be hurt if I don't explore the possibilities of that.

- because you haven't seen any records doesn't mean records don't exist. See above for existing inner memos for a business meeting in June 1958. Also, since Kirby was such a struggling artist do you think- since we're speculating and all- that he'd leave Long Island for Manhattan without knowing Stan would be there?

- the absence of information about Kirby's failed publishing ventures isn't "curious", Jim is just doing a passive-aggressive spin here which aligns with much of his swarmy, disrespectful tone. I swear, these guys would never speak to a man in person the way they do on these boards so let's let them enjoy it.

Yes, Kirby had some failed ventures like the Sky Masters strip. It isn't brought up because it's not relevant to the discussion (why quote "debate" when this isn't a debate? man, such obvious tactics to try to instigate- aren't you like 60?), it's worth noting that Stan's failed ventures (since you wanna bring it up) DWARF Kirby's significantly. Again, see Alter Ego #150 in which ALL of Stan's ventures fail painfully, to the point where he enlists his wife Joan to call various distributors to pretend to be an excited reader (I'm unsure that Kirby ever got his wife to resort to such tactics) and then forges multiple letters of support from Pete Morsi and Artie Simek's daughter.

None of this is relevant to Stan getting credit for complete creation. Again, this is the issue. Stan was very talented and an incredible Editor and spokesman for comics. No one disputes that.

Let's say that Kirby didn't sell millions in the Golden Age and got his byline on covers back then and didn't invent the Romance Genre with Joe Simon and so forth. Let's say EVERYTHING failed. Let's say Jimbo, a friend of the Messiah himself, is right and Kirby was about to become a CAB DRIVER- not a shameful profession, I might add- let's say that was all true.

.... does it excuse Stan Lee's theft of credit?? Hmm.. there's a Jesus parable in there somewhere, ain't there?

Let's just say there are a whole LOT of people who don't buy your narrative or your character assassination of Stan Lee, who conveniently isn't around to defend himself. I'm smarmy, huh? I wonder where I get that from? GOD BL;ESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited June 29, 2023 by jimjum12

[vaillant]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:21 AM, jimjum12 said:

Let's just say there are a WHOLE lot of people who don't buy your narrative or your character assassination of Stan Lee ... who conveniently isn't around to defend himself. I'm smarmy, huh? I wonder where I get that from? GOD BL;ESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Some Facebook discussion.
 

[shadroch]

On 6/29/2023 at 12:07 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

Again, that's all subjective and according to personal taste. The issue with The Marvel Method as a system is that it also operated as a kickback scheme of sorts as the Artist plotted and drove the stories completely yet didn't get paid for the plotting. I like those Silver Age stories too, but I'm not talking about it as a creative device but in how it harmed the artists. For a community here as concerned with profits and sales as it is, I'm amazed there's so little empathy for working artists not getting paid for all their work.

I was just reading how Princeton invited Stan to speak at their campus in 1966. They'd written him in 1965, excitedly asking why he'd included their campus in an issue of FF. Stan literally responds he had no idea and it's how Jack delivered the finished story to him. There are literally dozens of examples of this- Stan not knowing where the story he was going. Did he do some great work in capturing a tone and a line-wide flavor? Absolutely. It's not the case.

As a business owner, I want to treat my employees fairly.  If I offer you X in exchange for your work, and you agree to it, what else would I owe you? 

Kirby worked for hire. He evidently turned down a management position on several occasions. He wasn't happy at DC so he went to Marvel. He wasn't happy at Marvel so he went back to DC, only to leave there three years later to return to Marvel, which he left after three years because people were mean to him.  His later stuff at Pacific and for Eclipse didn't exactly light the comic world on fire, and at a time his fellow DC employees were giving us Dark Knight, Watchman, Swamp Thing, Titans and the Legion, Jack was pimping a toy line.  

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:21 AM, jimjum12 said:

Let's just say there are a WHOLE lot of people who don't buy your narrative or your character assassination of Stan Lee ... who conveniently isn't around to defend himself. I'm smarmy, huh? I wonder where I get that from? GOD BL;ESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

To anyone reading this: I don't know how I can be more articulate about this, but I will stress this one more time:

- I believe that Stan Lee wrongfully gets more credit than he is warranted.

I have stated Stan was talented and obviously crucial... but I believe the evidence exists that shows he was not the sole creator.

That's it. That's the entire argument. Stan is not the sole creator.

Saying that constitutes "character assassination"- digest that a bit.

Jimbo also infers I'm the reason he's swarmy even though he's aging rapidly and should know better than be influenced by strangers! Okay- Jesus would tell you "two wrongs do not make a right, my son."

As for a WHOLE LOT of people not agreeing- well, no s#*t! More than half aren't educated and didn't know the majority of the entire story and still think Sgt Fury exists because of a "bet" with Martin Goodman. What does it matter if the WHOLE LOT of people don't agree? Where's their argument against what the point was? The point is not if Kirby's "Super Powers" series of the Eighties is as good as Alan Moore (lol)!  This is again, more guys who can't address the issue and find other things to spin and deflect from.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:56 AM, shadroch said:

As a business owner, I want to treat my employees fairly.  If I offer you X in exchange for your work, and you agree to it, what else would I owe you? 

Kirby worked for hire. He evidently turned down a management position on several occasions. He wasn't happy at DC so he went to Marvel. He wasn't happy at Marvel so he went back to DC, only to leave there three years later to return to Marvel, which he left after three years because people were mean to him.  His later stuff at Pacific and for Eclipse didn't exactly light the comic world on fire, and at a time his fellow DC employees were giving us Dark Knight, Watchman, Swamp Thing, Titans and the Legion, Jack was pimping a toy line.  

Sure, much of that is fair. So, here is a question for you asked with respect: what does the work for hire agreement in the sixties have to do with Stan lying later on?

We are talking about one of the creators changing their story, contradicting earlier statements and outright lying when it aligns with corporate purchasing and job security. It has nothing to do with Jack disagreeing with work for hire. That's another argument that might be more relevant to the "Marvel didn't return his art in the Eighties" conversation.

We're talking about Stan saying "I think the guy who has the idea is the creator" and then saying- in print, no less!- that Doctor Strange "Twas Steve's idea"- and then, in 1974, saying it was his idea and, quote, "And Steve Ditko was the artist I selected to draw the story." (but why say in print years earlier it was Steve's idea?)

Work for hire ensures that colleagues can suddenly lie?

Shadroch, does work for hire ensure that you can take credit away from someone else? Yes or no please.

 

[jimjum12]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:13 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

Saying that constitutes "character assassination"- digest that a bit.

Go back and read all your posts, bro. When you speak of passive aggression, you obviously speak as an expert. If all we were talking about was Stan getting too much credit, I would have never entered this discussion. Some of us loved "Funky Flashman", he was the face of Marvel for a solid decade... the decade that counted. I'm a HUGE Kirby fan, although he did allow his nose to get out of joint and his ugly side came out. Like Claudio said, they did bury the hatchet at the end. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... nothing personal to you... in fact if I see you at Baltimore I'll buy you dinner (as long as it isn't Morton's Steakhouse  ...hey, this is America, you're allowed to be wrong if you chose...

Edited June 29, 2023 by jimjum12

[jimjum12]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:18 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

more relevant to the "Marvel didn't return his art in the Eighties" conversation.

... that was disgusting. I do become passionate about that.GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:23 AM, jimjum12 said:

Go back and read all your posts, bro. When you speak of passive aggression, you obviously speak as an expert. If all we were talking about was Stan getting too much credit, I would have never entered this discussion. Some of us loved "Funky Flashman", he was the face of Marvel for a solid decade... the decade that counted. I'm a HUGE Kirby fan, although he did allow his nose to get out of joint and his ugly side came out. Like Claudio said, they did bury the hatchet at the end. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

... nothing personal to you... in fact if I see you at Baltimore I'll buy you dinner (as long as it isn't Morton's Steakhouse  ...hey, this is America, you're allowed to be wrong if you chose...

I think you are reading statements I made jokingly as "passive aggressive". I am not passive aggressive and am known for being quite direct. I responded with some humor in response to the tones and implications I got after just writing factually. If guys are gonna get snarky with me first, then they'd better be Groucho Marx because I've got no problem being snarky back. If you have specific examples of passive aggressiveness on my part, please feel free to send me a private message and we can discuss them as I don't want to turn this thread into a joust.

I'll be at Baltimore, let me know if you indeed want to meet up in person. Don't worry, I don't go to Steakhouses.

If I'm wrong about Stan not being the total creator and the artists just drew his creations- by all means, make the case. I'll listen objectively. I've been studying this- even unintentionally- for over two decades. As far as I know, I'm the only one here with direct involvement and interaction with Stan and Gil Champion at POW! Entertainment and as far as I know I'm the only one here who almost beat the s#*t out of Max Anderson during one of his bullying tirades. I procured Poppy Ott & Jerry Todd books from the twenties for Stan and spent significant time with D. Ayers, Joe Sinnott and Steve Ditko about the Marvel Method practice. I've put the effort in to go through Stan's papers in Wyoming. What I say is based on being properly educated on the subject; there's no intention to assassinate someone. The intention is to battle against the wildly_fanciful_statement in this recent Disney+ Documentary. Sorry that me doing that makes me enemies instead of pals! Not the intent.

Edited June 29, 2023 by lordbyroncomics
missed words, changing Richard Ayer's name

[jimjum12]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:53 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

I'll be at Baltimore, let me know if you indeed want to meet up in person. Don't worry, I don't go to Steakhouses.

That might be cool, I'd like to demonstrate that I'm not always a pompous arse. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[jimjum12]

I've yet to watch the documentary, it's on my to-do list. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[lordbyroncomics]

*smashes head into desk*

So you've been commenting on comments about a documentary you didn't even watch.

I stand corrected Jimbo. That is very Groucho Marx. I hereby throw in the towel. Be good real frantic ones.

[Aman619]

But your discussion isn’t strictly about the doc. The Disney doc brought this up again.  Disney obviously has a vested interest in framing Stan as a Walt Disney of comics.  It’s what they do.  The discussion here  is about the larger ongoing discussion about who deserved the credit for marvel characters.  As others have said, there’s little new in the doc other than home movies, and clever elaborate diorama setups of the bullpen etc. (anyone know how big they are? The detail is amazing). which are repeated a few times as there are clearly not a lot existing..

stan changed his story to fit the needs of corporate above. I believe he started out from a marketing perspective.  Later on,  the need to prolong the sole genius story was too good to dismantle. And he was “required” to keep it up. And Stan was more than willing to oblige his corporate masters knowing how much he had worked to achieve the Marvel success. The artists were tasked with more than they were being paid for as artists… but they did it willingly and knew it was work for hire, cause as we all face in our lives and careers, they had little choice in order to earn a living. (Jack especially who had run his own publishing enterprises knew full well he had to take the piecemeal freelance work). …and who knew it would be worth something let alone billions, decades later.  If my dad were one of these guys I’d be pisted too. 
 

Kirby and Ditko have regained creatorship titles to their work, and the word is spreading.  At some point it will reach a tipping point maybe, and all three will be known for their collaborative achievements. 
 

’if only Marvel had failed after a few years!  No one would give a damn who did what. But collaboratively, they did their jobs too well.

 

[namisgr]

The polarization in this thread, while not surprising given prior discussions and ruminations on the creation of the Marvel Universe, is unfortunate and, to this former Marvel Zombie, unnecessarily and unjustifiably extreme.  Call Roy nasty and mean-spirited things (this also strikes me as strident extremism), and think of him what you will (as is your perogative) but he's absolutely right.  As is so often true with creative breakthrough, the whole at Marvel was far greater than the sum of the parts.

Surely it took both men, but they are each simply too myopic to see it.

- Roy Thomas

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by namisgr

[Zonker]

On 6/29/2023 at 6:13 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

 

That's it. That's the entire argument. Stan is not the sole creator.

 

See, I think by now, almost no one around here disputes that.  But inevitably we then get from

• "Stan is not the sole creator."
• To: "Despite what he said..."
• To: "Because he was a liar..."
• To: "Because he stole from x, y & z."

Instead, I think it possible to acknowledge what Kirby and Ditko brought to the party while still giving Stan Lee a bit of a break.  He grew up in a time where the whole business of who created what was much less of a concern than meeting the deadlines however possible to get the books out. 

I finally purchased a cheap copy of Stan's 1974 "Origins of Marvel Comics" off eBay.  Reading it in light of what we know now, it comes across as almost complete fiction.  (In fact, Stan says on p 180 "This very book...is possibly the closest I'll come to writing that great American novel.") In 1974 I don't think anyone wanted to buy a book from some editor talking about what all these 3rd parties did for him.  (Ditko & Kirby certainly weren't interested or available in 1974 to pen their own chapters for Marvel's book!) By the year 2000 there was enough of a market among comics fans for DC editor Julie Schwartz to publish his own autobio-- but back in 1974 Stan's publisher needed a simple I-was-there, 1st person narrative, and Stan was all too happy to oblige.

Why? Because that was the prevailing attitude during the mid-20th century. Stan's earlier book, 1947's "Secrets Behind the Comics" ,  strongly implied that the actual creator of Captain America was... publisher and money-man Martin Goodman!  And as I'm fond of pointing out in these discussions, the comic strip "Li'l Abner" was always "by Al Capp" even when it was actually being ghosted by Frank Freakin' Frazetta! 

The whole comic book production assembly line was created to facilitate the commerce of publishing, not the art.  No one thought the best way to preserve the cartoonist's original vision was to split up the work between penciling and inking-- that's just for the convenience of the assembly line.  So, Kirby or Ditko got an agreed page rate for whatever it was that Kirby or Ditko did.  Some pencilers produce very loose pencils, some very tight, and pencilers working in the Marvel Method certainly do a whole lot more. Stan probably did squeeze some extra pay out of Goodman for being the named writer, but that doesn't mean he was taking money out of Kirby's or Ditko's pocket.  There are stories of Wally Wood and Joe Orlando walking away from Marvel because they weren't paid enough for the way Stan wanted them to work.  Ditko and Kirby finally left for more complicated reasons (much more can be said about that, including perceived lack of respect, editorial interference, appropriation of their characters into directions they never intended).

So, even if we can give Stan a pass for that's-just-how-it-was in the mid 20th century, what about the last 20 years of his life?  I think here it helps to empathize with the guy who never really accomplished much after he left for Hollywood in the mid 1970s.  For the rest of his life, he would be living off the success he achieved at Marvel during 1961-1972. It would be great if he could have been secure enough (ego-wise and money-wise) to be more magnanimous in his later years, but as it was, he was locked in to that Stan Lee legend he had helped create, and likely also told himself that same  legend was the necessary key to the sure-fire success of whatever prospective venture he was chasing at the time.