Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 9 9

[VintageComics]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:21 AM, comicwiz said:

1973 was the year of the great paper shortage. It was also around the time Neal Adams was warning artists against signing Marvel's releases in exchange for their art. There was also suppodely very real concern at this time of artists organizing as a result of the backlash from artists like Kirby's art being held hostage for refusing to sign his release, and although their defenders talk about Lee's "visionary" leadership, Marvel instead decides to force their hand at demanding two pages for the rate pay of one page. Not disagreeing this isn't corporate greed at play, but it's not a sharpest tool in the shed move by so-called leadership. This year marks 40 years I've been working in the labour force. I've never had an employer tell me I needed to clock two hours for one hour of pay. That's not to say none of them were greedy, the list I could provide, and the evidence against their history of greed could easily prove otherwise. But they also aren't that dumb to overstep out of bounds with labour laws. 

In my industry, they did exactly that. 

They took jobs they'd pay us 4.5 hours for and decided they were only going to pay us 2.5 hours.

They took jobs they paid us 2 hours for and ended up paying us 1 hour. They trimmed our times and I eventually left. 

Edited Sunday at 02:42 PM by VintageComics

[JollyComics]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:30 PM, Prince Namor said:

Thank you! My understanding is there will be added content. I still have my original, so I doubt I'll pick up the new one, but anyone who is a fan of the book or a collector may want to pick it up (it makes a great companion piece with MY book!).

Personally, when I read DisneyMarvel's Stan Lee propaganda, it makes me want to throw up. And at my age, that's never a good thing. 

I agreed you about Disney.  It seemed everything originals would be their that can mislead the younger generations.   I am NOT thrilled to see those Disney characters in Marvel superheroes' costumes. It makes me puking too.

Kirby family and Disney made the settlement for the copyrights ten years ago.  Now, families of Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and others are suing Disney about the copyrights since 2021.

Edited Sunday at 03:07 PM by JollyComics

[Jimmy Linguini]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:42 PM, sfcityduck said:

No. It was that the fact your book is not associated with a publisher suggests that you paid for its publication and would therefore be funding your publicity. 

No. The book was published by Amazon - you don't have to pay anything for Amazon to publish your book.

[jimjum12]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:12 AM, Jimmy Linguini said:

No. The book was published by Amazon - you don't have to pay anything for Amazon to publish your book.

Nothing ignoble about self-publishing. it's been done for centuries and should require no apology. If anything, it underscores an author's belief and confidence in their own efforts. You know, putting the money where the mouth is. GOD BLESS ...

-jmbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/22/2024 at 4:24 PM, jimjum12 said:

You know, putting the money where the mouth is

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:24 AM, VintageComics said:

Every time someone narrows a gap on a point you move the target to avoid narrowing in any further on the gap. It's impossible to have a discussion with a moving target like that.

What are you even talking about? The only one who moves goalposts is you. 

I QUOTED YOU and responded. It doesn't get anymore direct than that.

On 9/22/2024 at 11:24 AM, VintageComics said:

Yet, when you discuss Kirby you make him sound like he was pulling rabbits out of a hat by himself with no-one else capable of complementing him. In fact, he was complimenting everyone else just as much as they were complimenting him and you keep undermining everyone else's role diminishing the contributions of Simon and Kirby.  Your Kirby worldview is very one sided, and if that's not your intent, it's certainly how it's coming across, so you're not communicating in a way that offers anyone else any real credit. 

No. What I pointed out is that Kirby's work was successful before came back to Marvel. He co-created and worked on Marvel biggest selling book ever (up until the late 80's/early 90's) - his work sold millions at DC - his work sold millions at Crestwood - and his Challengers of the Unknown got it's own book about a year faster than the modern age Flash did, despite appearing later in Showcase. He was successful fro 20 years in the business...

While Lee... had nothing comparable. 

On 9/22/2024 at 11:24 AM, VintageComics said:

My point was that Kirby copied Shield down to almost the smallest details, and that it was much more of a copy than CM was of Superman.

I thought Joe Simon claimed HE created Cap all by himself so which is it? Which version supports what you're argueing now?

On 9/22/2024 at 11:24 AM, VintageComics said:

And none of that excuses stealing, but it does show that copying was an acceptable industry standard throughout the entire history of comics.

Something that wouldn't be tolerated today. 

Every relationship everyone stays in is 50/50. 

50% of what you do and 50% of what you allow, and if you allow something to persist in a relationship, you don't get to complain about it for allowing it. 

That's real life. 

I'm not going to go in circles anymore. It was a fun discussion but now it's just getting repetitive. 

Jack Kirby creates a concept. Lee says, yes! Do it!

Jack Kirby plots, layouts, writes and draws the story. Lee adds dialogue from Kirby's notes in the margins.

Lee gets paid for editing and writing. Kirby gets paid for drawing.

Hmm. Doesn't sound 50/50 to me.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

One thing I like about this thread....it's a lot of laughs!    

On 9/15/2024 at 1:09 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL.

 

On 9/15/2024 at 4:54 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

 

On 9/15/2024 at 10:17 PM, Prince Namor said:

LOL.

LOL. 

 

 

On 9/16/2024 at 12:44 AM, grendel013 said:

 

On 9/17/2024 at 4:18 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL.

 

 

On 9/17/2024 at 4:50 AM, Prince Namor said:

 LOL.

 

On 9/17/2024 at 6:35 AM, ttfitz said:

 

On 9/17/2024 at 2:16 PM, Bookery said:

   

LOL.

 

 

 

On 9/18/2024 at 1:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL.

LOL.

 

On 9/18/2024 at 1:52 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL.

 

On 9/18/2024 at 1:56 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL.

LOL.

 

On 9/18/2024 at 2:01 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL. 

 

On 9/18/2024 at 2:05 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL. 

 

On 9/18/2024 at 8:51 PM, Mmehdy said:

...LOL......LOL

 

On 9/18/2024 at 9:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

On 9/19/2024 at 1:49 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.

 

On 9/20/2024 at 5:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

 

On 9/20/2024 at 5:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

On 9/21/2024 at 3:58 AM, Prince Namor said:

 LOL

 

LOL

 

On 9/21/2024 at 4:05 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL.

 

On 9/21/2024 at 4:31 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL

 

On 9/21/2024 at 4:32 AM, Prince Namor said:

 LOL

 

On 9/21/2024 at 4:55 AM, Prince Namor said:

 LOL. 
 

 

 

On 9/21/2024 at 5:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

 LoL.

 

On 9/21/2024 at 3:47 PM, Prince Namor said:

LOL

 

On 9/21/2024 at 4:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

LOL

 

On 9/21/2024 at 5:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL.

 

 

On 9/21/2024 at 9:47 PM, jimjum12 said:

  

 

On 9/22/2024 at 12:13 AM, Prince Namor said:

LOL. 

LOL

 

On 9/22/2024 at 4:18 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL

 

 

On 9/22/2024 at 4:30 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:17 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

One thing I like about this thread....it's a lot of laughs!    

Once again, not about the topic, but aimed at me.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Once again, not about the topic, but aimed at me.

Not at all, I've quoted all the laughs.   

Edited Sunday at 04:22 PM by Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

[Ken Aldred]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:35 PM, Bookery said:

  So... pretty hard to argue with a mind-reader.  What have I written in this thread that gives you even the slightest idea that I have been some sort of Stan Lee apologist?  Have I ever even argued against a single case you have made against a specific Stan Lee "lie"?  Do you even read my posts?  I don't care about Stan Lee as a personality.  I don't care about Jack Kirby as a personality.  I have brought in some broader perspectives about the era, the nature of the publishing industry, etc., and have done so only because some of your posts have either (a) glossed over things that should be important to your narrative (b) been misleading about larger issues, or (c) have been flat out wrong altogether.  A lot of my posts aren't even directed at you specifically, but at larger issues that are raised throughout the thread.  In fact, my posts aren't even about your book... but about errors you have made in this thread and this thread only.  And to that, I think I have been pretty civil throughout.  

Surprise!  I don't care about Bob Kane as a personality either!  (Bet you didn't see that coming).  If you had brought up Bob Kane or Bill Finger's "creation" of Batman, my response would have been remarkably parallel to this discussion.  They both stole the ideas, almost whole cloth, from a mash-up of the pulps' The Shadow and The Black Bat.  You see... as a historian of the pulps and to some extent fiction in general, it's a bit annoying to me to see people work themselves into a frenzy about the "creativity" in comics, or at least hero comics anyway, when as far as I can tell, from the writing perspective at least, there has never been an original thought in the entire history of the medium.  And that's not even a put-down, because the entire structure of the comic industry from the beginning was all about swiping ideas from popular fiction and transferring them to an art-centric medium to reach an audience that probably wasn't going to read the more word-intensive formats anyway (at least not until they were older).  

Anyway... I was going to answer every sentence of your above post simply with "LOL" -- but I suspect the satire would have been missed.  I don't have any more to add to this thread.  I've gotten sucked back in twice already.  So have at it... once again mis-characterize everything I've said above... feel free, as you won't be challenged  by me when you do.  (Besides, CGC Mike needs a break... I'll reduce by one the posters he needs to monitor because of an imminent breaking point that will eventually cross the line).  Finally, as I've stated, having done it myself, I respect what it takes to write a book... any book... so I will even help you plug yours...

Folks... for anyone who has missed it, the book is about Stan Lee lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics.  Available at Amazon.

I agree. I’ve read so many comics that you see variants of the same old archetypes and all-too-familiar tropes, but as long as they’re interpreted imaginatively and continue to be entertaining it’s enough for me, without ongoing, interminable hyper-analysis and the apportioning or reapportioning of credit or originality.

That’s an intense, headache-inducing, icon-trashing thought experiment which I’ll kick back and leave others to argue out. Interesting to watch and read, anyway.

Edited Sunday at 04:43 PM by Ken Aldred

[VintageComics]

On 9/22/2024 at 12:16 PM, Prince Namor said:

I thought Joe Simon claimed HE created Cap all by himself so which is it? Which version supports what you're argueing now?

That's the difference between your method and everyone else's.

Nobody is arguing a version. Your mind is made up and you're arguing a version. 

Cap was a copy of Shield. That's it. 

On 9/22/2024 at 12:16 PM, Prince Namor said:

Hmm. Doesn't sound 50/50 to me.

That's because you're using a different 50/50 than I am.

I've already clearly defined which 50/50 I'm using. I said that every relationship, whether business, or a lover or a family member is 50% what you yourself personally do, and 50% of what you allow. By not leaving, you are allowing bad behavior towards yourself. That's the target point.

Kirby chose to stay with people he ended up resenting working with and now all there are is complaints left. I don't respect that sort of behavior. 

What you've done is, instead of convincing me that Kirby was wronged, is that you've done the opposite. You're convincing me that Kirby allowed himself to be wronged over and over, moving from publisher to publisher, constantly complaining over 50 years about his circumstances but not changing them. 

And I'm not the only one that feels this way. 

IMO, your method of "debate" is driving reasonable, well intentioned people out of the discussion. 

I've never seen anyone as reasonable or balanced replies as Bookery on these boards, and yet he's left. 

sfcityduck is well educated and fairly reasonable. He's left. 

I understand there's some history between you and I but I've stayed above board in my discussion on Kirby and Lee the entire time. I'm leaving. 

We get it. Kirby is both Lennon and McCartney. In fact, he's the entire Beatles and everyone else was a tag along including Joe Simon and Stan Lee.

I disagree, but have at it. 

Edited Sunday at 05:19 PM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

  So... pretty hard to argue with a mind-reader.  What have I written in this thread that gives you even the slightest idea that I have been some sort of Stan Lee apologist?  Have I ever even argued against a single case you have made against a specific Stan Lee "lie"? 

"(Lee) allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers." (Speaking of MY errors in this thread - and I'm not yet sure what those are yet - but that is one of yours)

"who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines” - another common misconception that people have that Lee was giving credit to others, when in reality he was giving HIMSELF credit for writing he didn't do. (I'd call that another error and sorry but, SOUNDS like someone who IS interested in Lee as a personality)

"But Marvel, the 1961 version, right out of the box, began crediting the writers and artists, regardless of fame, on pretty much every story, main or back-up." (That's also an error. The first credit box, specifiying between writer and artist was on FF #9 in September of 1962. Hulk with #5 in November of 1962, Gunsmoke Western in January of 1963, etc.

There's more but... you can see how - and I'm not denying you DON'T care about Lee as a personality - but you can see how I would be lured into believing, with that line of questioning and bringing up of the same line of questioning Lee apologist use - that you would be doing exactly that.

Again, I have no reason to belive you don't care about Stan Lee if that's what you say, but... to come in here and right out of the box defend him (I didn't even bring up the first post and Lee's 'ballyhoo'), how could I NOT think you were... defending him? People usually don't waste their time defending someone who they could care less about. 

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

Do you even read my posts?  I don't care about Stan Lee as a personality.  I don't care about Jack Kirby as a personality.  I have brought in some broader perspectives about the era, the nature of the publishing industry, etc., and have done so only because some of your posts have either (a) glossed over things that should be important to your narrative (b) been misleading about larger issues, or (c) have been flat out wrong altogether. 

Then why come into a thread about Stan Lee (and now, Jack Kirby) and post 30 times? And yes, you have added some perspectives outside the basic topic, no said anything about that being wrong - but as I showed above you DID post on the specific subject as well. 

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

A lot of my posts aren't even directed at you specifically, but at larger issues that are raised throughout the thread.  In fact, my posts aren't even about your book... but about errors you have made in this thread and this thread only.  And to that, I think I have been pretty civil throughout.  

What errors?

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

in general, it's a bit annoying to me to see people work themselves into a frenzy about the "creativity" in comics, or at least hero comics anyway, when as far as I can tell, from the writing perspective at least, there has never been an original thought in the entire history of the medium.  And that's not even a put-down, because the entire structure of the comic industry from the beginning was all about swiping ideas from popular fiction and transferring them to an art-centric medium to reach an audience that probably wasn't going to read the more word-intensive formats anyway (at least not until they were older). 

That's because you and others have made it ABOUT the creativity. It's another excuse for Lee cloaked in an argument that glosses over the REAL discussion - Lee stole credit and pay from people for the WORK they did. It has nothing to do with the CREATVITY necessarily - he stole credit and pay from people for the WORK they did.

And the funny thing is, no one seems to have a problem complaining about Kirby - in others' words - stealing ideas (The Shield) - when they completly gloss over that Lee did it to the guy who basically SAVED his career and MADE his career.

The idea that Kirby wouldn't have been successful without Lee is laughable. Kirby already WAS. He was a KNOWN creator - a respected artist. Lee was a nobody who's company would've been shut down without Kirby walking through the door when he did.

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

Anyway... I was going to answer every sentence of your above post simply with "LOL" -- but I suspect the satire would have been missed. 

I didn't do that to you. I'm sorry you've taken our discussion as offensive to you. I was never meaning it to be.

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

I don't have any more to add to this thread.  I've gotten sucked back in twice already.  So have at it... once again mis-characterize everything I've said above... feel free, as you won't be challenged  by me when you do.  (Besides, CGC Mike needs a break... I'll reduce by one the posters he needs to monitor because of an imminent breaking point that will eventually cross the line).

I quoted you...

On 9/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, Bookery said:

  Finally, as I've stated, having done it myself, I respect what it takes to write a book... any book... so I will even help you plug yours...

Folks... for anyone who has missed it, the book is about Stan Lee lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics.  Available at Amazon.

I appreciate it. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/22/2024 at 6:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

I quoted you...

But when anyone quotes YOU....it's a personal attack.  

[Prince Namor]

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

That's because you're using a different 50/50 than I am.

I've already clearly defined which 50/50 I'm using. I said that every relationship, whether business, or a lover or a family member is 50% what you yourself personally do, and 50% of what you allow. By not leaving, you are allowing bad behavior towards yourself. That's the target point.

Kirby chose to stay with people he ended up resenting working with and now all there are is complaints left. I don't respect that sort of behavior. 

I've worked with a lot of people from abused relationships in my life, and never once did I ever think to blame them or say they're 50% responsible for it. 

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

What you've done is, instead of convincing me

I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything.

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

that Kirby was wronged, is that you've done the opposite. You're convincing me that Kirby allowed himself to be wronged over and over, moving from publisher to publisher, constantly complaining over 50 years about his circumstances but not changing them.

Wait... he moved from publisher to publisher to try and make his situation better, but... he wasn't changing his circumstances by doing that...? I don't understand.

Am I moving the goalposts? Am I conflating?

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

And I'm not the only one that feels this way. 

Here we go. The pile on. Bring others into it. It's all ME.

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

IMO, your method of "debate" is driving reasonable, well intentioned people out of the discussion. 

I've never seen anyone as reasonable or balanced replies as Bookery on these boards, and yet he's left. 

He hasn't yet.

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

sfcityduck is well educated and fairly reasonable. He's left. 

Not by his own accord.

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

I understand there's some history between you and I but I've stayed above board in my discussion on Kirby and Lee the entire time. I'm leaving. 

Adios.

On 9/23/2024 at 12:12 AM, VintageComics said:

We get it. Kirby is both Lennon and McCartney. In fact, he's the entire Beatles and everyone else was a stringer including Joe Simon and Stan Lee.

I disagree, but have at it. 

Never said that. Straw Man.

But hey thanks for starting and ending your rant with the (sort of) topic of the thread, even if it was mainly filled with just more blah blah blah directed at ME. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/22/2024 at 6:25 PM, Prince Namor said:

I've worked with a lot of people from abused relationships in my life, and never once did I ever think to blame them or say they're 50% responsible for it. 

Well that's very commendable.

[Bookery]

On 9/22/2024 at 1:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

"(Lee) allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers." (Speaking of MY errors in this thread - and I'm not yet sure what those are yet - but that is one of yours)

 

"who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines” - another common misconception that people have that Lee was giving credit to others, when in reality he was giving HIMSELF credit for writing he didn't do. (I'd call that another error and sorry but, SOUNDS like someone who IS interested in Lee as a personality)

Namor is claiming the above are my quotes, hence his quotation marks:  

I'm sorry CGC Mike, I surely am... but I cannot let stand, nor should anyone, someone else purposely altering their quotes.  You have no right to change what I said or to flagrantly mis-reprsent it.  For the record here is exactly what I said (I have added the blue to show just how radically they differentiate from what Namor is claiming I meant):

I have an honest question here that probably others know, and I'm guessing Prince Namor does through his research... who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines (I know it started at Atlas, though not consistently).  Some previous publishers would occasionally allow artists to sign a page.  But for the most part they did not.  Marvel, when it became Marvel in the '60s, actually gave credit to the writer, the penciller, the inker, and even the letterer!  Even as a kid in the '60s I noticed that was different.  That was unheard of in comics up until then (publishers like Dell never gave credit to anyone).  Other comics, by the end of the '60s began doing it probably under pressure from creators who said "Marvel's doing it, why can't you?"

This seems really significant, so who authorized it?  Goodman?  Lee?  Some other executive?

As you can see, there is no "(Lee)" in parenthesis.  In fact you purposely replaced my word "Marvel" with "Lee".  I literally, literally, was just asking who authorized this.  I did not assume that Lee did it... in fact if I was forced to guess, and a guess is what it would be, I would have said Goodman.  But I appealed to your expertise to see if you knew.  Instead you add something to my quote and subtly change words (you can see that the quoted words are not exactly the same).  You then insinuated that these questions are somehow implying I mean Lee.  I said "Marvel" repeatedly for a reason.

And if this wasn't self-explanatory enough, in a follow-up post I said this:

So my question remains, is there any record of who instituted this?  Lee as editor?  Goodman as publisher?  Some sort of negotiating deal to get new writers and artists to come over to Marvel?  This was a pretty big departure from how other publishers were doing it in the early '60s.

I've defended your right to have the topic in Comic General.  I've congratulated you on publishing a book.  I've appealed to your expertise in areas, like above, where I freely admit I don't have any knowledge.  I've tried to correct you only in areas I do have some knowledge, such as publishing history... never specifically the Lee-Kirby debate.  What I get in return, after I announce I won't comment any more, is a blatant re-wording of my posts, for the sole purpose of adding me to your ever-growing lists of "Lee apologists", and to try to make me look like a liar when I said, repeatedly, I was not personally invested in either Lee or Kirby.   You even go so far as to claim it's "one of my errors" in a quote you re-worded and took out of its context to mean something entirely different than the question I asked.  I will leave it to others at this point to judge how dependable any "quotes" in your book may be.  But please stop "quoting" me.

(I do ask that the moderator keep up both his post and my defense, because once read, removing it won't remove what people already read.  Other than some mis-steps I made when I first joined... took awhile to get a feel for the boards and learn my own limitations... I don't think I have a track record of being a particularly contentious and divisive poster.)

 

[comicwiz]

On 9/22/2024 at 1:12 PM, VintageComics said:

Kirby chose to stay with people he ended up resenting working with and now all there are is complaints left. I don't respect that sort of behavior. 

What you've done is, instead of convincing me that Kirby was wronged, is that you've done the opposite. You're convincing me that Kirby allowed himself to be wronged over and over, moving from publisher to publisher, constantly complaining over 50 years about his circumstances but not changing them. 

And I'm not the only one that feels this way. 

You and anyone that "feels" that way would enormously benefit by doing a little research, and understanding the circumstances of "illegal confiscation." Below is a primer, lots of information in the Kirby case to expand your knowledge on this subject before making such incredibly inaccurate claims about what Kirby had to deal with as a freelance creator, and the appalling way which you present it as almost sounding like he deserved it. 

Unethical and Illegal Confiscation
"As was the custom of the time, publishers rarely had contracts with their freelance independent artists. It was understood that the copyrights to the work were purchased and assigned. This relationship governed the work at issue in this case, which was created 1958-1963. Later, pressure was brought to bear on Kirby to divest him of his rights as a condition of payment and continuing work.

A written "agreement" between Kirby and Marvel first appeared decades later in 1970, as a legend inserted by Marvel's attorneys on the back of its checks. This tactic forced Kirby to simultaneously surrender "assignment of any rights to renewal copyright" when signing his name in order to be paid.

Later still, in 1978, when the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect, Marvel changed the legends on the back of the check to a "work-for-hire" acknowledgement. Again, Kirby and other Marvel artists were required to sign the back of the check in order to be paid.

Later again, in 1980, decades after the success of the key Kirby characters, Marvel's new corporate parents attempted to again "clean up" Marvel's claims to what had become comic book franchises. This marked a further attempt at a confiscation of rights, this time as a condition of the mere return of physical original artwork which it never owned. Sales of original comic art in the collector's market began to fetch considerable sums and artists began demanding return of their original art from publishers. Publishers had to return the originals; they had only acquired reproduction rights. However, Marvel's corporate parents conditioned the return of the artists' own property upon signing releases now retroactively re-characterizing their artwork as work-for-hire. Kirby's "release" was far more extensive than those required of the other artists, running more than four pages long. But, just as the other artists, Kirby was compelled to seek the return of his originals as a means of providing his family with some form of security."

Edited Sunday at 06:44 PM by comicwiz

[Mmehdy]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:12 AM, VintageComics said:

That's the difference between your method and everyone else's.

Nobody is arguing a version. Your mind is made up and you're arguing a version. 

Cap was a copy of Shield. That's it. 

That's because you're using a different 50/50 than I am.

I've already clearly defined which 50/50 I'm using. I said that every relationship, whether business, or a lover or a family member is 50% what you yourself personally do, and 50% of what you allow. By not leaving, you are allowing bad behavior towards yourself. That's the target point.

Kirby chose to stay with people he ended up resenting working with and now all there are is complaints left. I don't respect that sort of behavior. 

What you've done is, instead of convincing me that Kirby was wronged, is that you've done the opposite. You're convincing me that Kirby allowed himself to be wronged over and over, moving from publisher to publisher, constantly complaining over 50 years about his circumstances but not changing them. 

And I'm not the only one that feels this way. 

IMO, your method of "debate" is driving reasonable, well intentioned people out of the discussion. 

I've never seen anyone as reasonable or balanced replies as Bookery on these boards, and yet he's left. 

sfcityduck is well educated and fairly reasonable. He's left. 

I understand there's some history between you and I but I've stayed above board in my discussion on Kirby and Lee the entire time. I'm leaving. 

We get it. Kirby is both Lennon and McCartney. In fact, he's the entire Beatles and everyone else was a tag along including Joe Simon and Stan Lee.

I disagree, but have at it. 

Lee was a minor player to say the best in the creation of anything. "Yes do it" is pretty easy to say...50/50 is a joke all the way...now 90-10 much better no matter whose scale you use! Just because people post, does not mean they do not continue to READ this post by post....I would say 80% of the readers here NEVER post...no biggee!

[Hulksdaddy1]

So, we get this thing figured out, everybody's happy now? 

[Mmehdy]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:35 AM, Bookery said:

Namor is claiming the above are my quotes, hence his quotation marks:  

I'm sorry CGC Mike, I surely am... but I cannot let stand, nor should anyone, someone else purposely altering their quotes.  You have no right to change what I said or to flagrantly mis-reprsent it.  For the record here is exactly what I said (I have added the blue to show just how radically they differentiate from what Namor is claiming I meant):

I have an honest question here that probably others know, and I'm guessing Prince Namor does through his research... who was it at Marvel who came up with the idea of giving artists and writers bylines (I know it started at Atlas, though not consistently).  Some previous publishers would occasionally allow artists to sign a page.  But for the most part they did not.  Marvel, when it became Marvel in the '60s, actually gave credit to the writer, the penciller, the inker, and even the letterer!  Even as a kid in the '60s I noticed that was different.  That was unheard of in comics up until then (publishers like Dell never gave credit to anyone).  Other comics, by the end of the '60s began doing it probably under pressure from creators who said "Marvel's doing it, why can't you?"

This seems really significant, so who authorized it?  Goodman?  Lee?  Some other executive?

As you can see, there is no "(Lee)" in parenthesis.  In fact you purposely replaced my word "Marvel" with "Lee".  I literally, literally, was just asking who authorized this.  I did not assume that Lee did it... in fact if I was forced to guess, and a guess is what it would be, I would have said Goodman.  But I appealed to your expertise to see if you knew.  Instead you add something to my quote and subtly change words (you can see that the quoted words are not exactly the same).  You then insinuated that these questions are somehow implying I mean Lee.  I said "Marvel" repeatedly for a reason.

And if this wasn't self-explanatory enough, in a follow-up post I said this:

So my question remains, is there any record of who instituted this?  Lee as editor?  Goodman as publisher?  Some sort of negotiating deal to get new writers and artists to come over to Marvel?  This was a pretty big departure from how other publishers were doing it in the early '60s.

I've defended your right to have the topic in Comic General.  I've congratulated you on publishing a book.  I've appealed to your expertise in areas, like above, where I freely admit I don't have any knowledge.  I've tried to correct you only in areas I do have some knowledge, such as publishing history... never specifically the Lee-Kirby debate.  What I get in return, after I announce I won't comment any more, is a blatant re-wording of my posts, for the sole purpose of adding me to your ever-growing lists of "Lee apologists", and to try to make me look like a liar when I said, repeatedly, I was not personally invested in either Lee or Kirby.   You even go so far as to claim it's "one of my errors" in a quote you re-worded and took out of its context to mean something entirely different than the question I asked.  I will leave it to others at this point to judge how dependable any "quotes" in your book may be.  But please stop "quoting" me.

(I do ask that the moderator keep up both his post and my defense, because once read, removing it won't remove what people already read.  Other than some mis-steps I made when I first joined... took awhile to get a feel for the boards and learn my own limitations... I don't think I have a track record of being a particularly contentious and divisive poster.)

 

That would assume so sort of corporate normal structure...I think this was anything BUT normal....he probably would of killed the line if not for some type of family loyalty....if he had any.