So how much work did Bob Kane actually do?

[tth2]

So many people like to dismiss his dialogue as a minor part of the whole! Juts imagine a lesser writer telling these same stories. oy!

It's simple, just imagine Spidey taking on villains named Granny Goodness, or dialogue that had lots of "Yaaaaaaah's".

 

Funny, aman, I always thought you were part of the anti-Stan camp.

[Aman619]

I am aware of Stan's excesses, and do feel he went a bit too far in "grabbing" the credit for Marvel by maintaining the popular misconception that he did it all himself. I feel in the early days, he knew that that was just what the media WANTED him to be... and he skillfully fed them the "creative genius" they were seeking when sent to do a piece on "the latest fad in funny books". In the beginning he was doing it for "all the Marvel guys" - - puffing it up, getting massive exposure for the work these guys had always been embarrassed about!

 

The worst was in the early Seventies in the prefaces of the Origins of Marvel trades. Those are embarrassing to read now.

 

But, when I hear people denigrate Stan's involvement to that of office intern! then I feel I have to say something.

[tth2]

I am aware of Stan's excesses, and do feel he went a bit too far in "grabbing" the credit for Marvel by maintaining the popular misconception that he did it all himself. I feel in the early days, he knew that that was just what the media WANTED him to be... and he skillfully fed them the "creative genius" they were seeking when sent to do a piece on "the latest fad in funny books". In the beginning he was doing it for "all the Marvel guys" - - puffing it up, getting massive exposure for the work these guys had always been embarrassed about!

 

The worst was in the early Seventies in the prefaces of the Origins of Marvel trades. Those are embarrassing to read now.

 

But, when I hear people denigrate Stan's involvement to that of office intern! then I feel I have to say something.

[Forbush-Man]

But, when I hear people denigrate Stan's involvement to that of office intern! then I feel I have to say something.

 

Stan Lee wrote the best comics of the 1960's. I started reading DC but soon was hooked by Marvel. But the creative aspect I give to Kirby & Ditko. Stan get creadit for the flawed hero who constantly has to deal with real life issues. Stan was only an Office Intern in the very earliest years, when he was writing the two page text stories so Timely could get educational{?} postal rates. But even then he threw himself into it.

[BLBcomics-migration]

]

 

I am in agreement with you. I have given Ditko & Kirby the lion share for the creation. I even mentioned further back in this thread that Stan Lee had the period from around 1947-1958/59 and that things didn't start popping until Ditko & Kirby climed on board. Stan Lee was the wordsmith, the vast majority of the creation was Kirby (with a little Simon on the Silver Spider) & Ditko. Stan may have thought to make the FF costumeless (or maybe that was Kirby's carry over of the Challengers of the Unknown) and likely (?) Stan's idea to make Spider-Man an angst-ridden teenager. The fragile hero is Stan Lee, but the creation of the Marvel Universe (for the most part) was kirby & Ditko.

 

You can also look at everything Stan has done post Marvel and see his influence is weak. His re-tooling of the DC major characters........and Stripperella........

 

I have always thought the fragile hero to be Steve Ditko, but then again maybe we should look at many creators as being somewhat fragile.

 

In examining Stan's 1960s Marvel role, one needs to explore his pre 1961 creations, and then what he has come up with post Kirby departure in 1970.

 

All i have been discussing is the creation of the individual characters, in the main.

 

McCartney = Kirby

Lennon = Lieber

 

what's more important, the melody of the song or the words which go with it?

[BLBcomics-migration]

"creation" is a funny word. It means many things to different people. Id say Stan DID create the Marvel Universe. The Marvel wordl where all these heroes and villains lived and interacted. The Marvel Universe did NOT create superheroes. They already existed. And all the early Marvel superheroes were retreads of previously published superheroes, anyway. Torch, Reed, invisible, namor, Cap, etc

 

What was NEW, What was CREATED, by Stan, was the Marvel Universe, where they all co-existed in NYC, and had personal problems, and didnt always win, and heroes fought and distrusted each other! The Mighty Marvel Age of comics was NOT a success because of the costumes, powers, villains or secret identites of the characters, It was due to Stan's up-til-then UNIQUE take on the long ago created "superhero comicbook' genre. He turned it on its head,.. So many people like to dismiss his dialogue as a minor part of the whole! Juts imagine a lesser writer telling these same stories. oy!

 

THAT was the only thing 'created at Marvel in the 60s. And it was STAN LEE who mastermined it all, handing out assignments to artists who he trusted to meet deadlines and fill in the blanks of the individual issues. Lesser talents than Kirby Ditko etc would have turned in lifeless drek, so of course they contributed mightily by doing their part successfully.

 

Does anyone really think that the Marvel books would have been more than a flash in the pan if Stan werent at the top pulling the strings?

 

Early creation also includes Hulk, Ant Man, Xmen, Thor, Iron Man, etc, and, ahem, Yer Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman - not retreads by any stretch.

 

I do not dismiss Lieber's wordsmithing, yes, unique, have stated so before in so many words- but the story was created before the words were added in - the sequential continuity in place before the words were - the so-called "Marvel Way"

 

in 1966 Stanley Lierber was quoted in a NYC news paper article (NY Herald Tribune? I have it here somewhere) that all he does with Kirby was suggest a villain for the month and let Kirby go at it. Kirby was also described by the reporter with an unflattering description

 

- something Roz Kirby was very upset with, even years later when i talked about that article with her at a San Diego Comicon, the one were i scored the then earliest known S&K original, a page from a 1942 Newsboy Legion story about the Nazis conquering New York City

 

Lieber's tune changed as Goodman began negotiations to sell Marvel in 1958, once the 10 book per month 10 year contract done with Independent News in 1958 was up (when American News went out of the distribution business)

 

What began appearing by Lieber in the forwards in those Origins series books which cranked up in the 1970s reminds me so much of the Amazing World of DC #5 special Superman issue - the one where Mort got so much credit, and Jerry & Joe are not even mentioned

 

How the Marvel Universe evolved as Stan got inspired with his wordsmith concepts is not what I began discussing, and i will not be one to knock that aspect either. Does everyone here think Stan came up with The Xmen?

 

What i do say is the creation of the characters, who they were, what they were about, came from others besides Lee, namely Kirby & Ditko

[Aman619]

yeah. but Bob, as I said, or tried to say, "characters, shmaracters!" It was the tone, the irreverence, the attitute change that was 180 degrees from DC and Harvey and everyone else at the time that set Marvel apart. All that was Stan.

 

McCartney = Kirby

Lennon = Lieber

 

your Beatles analogy is very astute, and surprisingly revealing of one's personal slant on the issue. I gather you prefer Paul's tunes to John's songwriting, and therefore consider Paul the more creative one. But it is generally perceived as exactly the opposite! Paul is the lighter one, the fluffier musician, and more in line with your opinions of Stan at Marvel... while Lennon was in reality the darker, more serious artist, the Creator, fueling the pop ditties with a soul and purpose, while Paul was 'merely' seeking "hits".

 

Also. Its hard to think of Paul as the "forgotten Beatle" compared to John, so I cant see Paul as Kirby at all!

 

The analogy is very apt, though, since they too didnt get along and came to blows (at around the same time... a coincidence??) over who was getting proper credit for what. Just proves once again how hard it is to apportion credit when objects and ideas are birthed by committee, under deadline, for a buck! And nobody cares until there a lot of money at stake!

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

yeah. but Bob, as I said, or tried to say, "characters, shmaracters!" It was the tone, the irreverence, the attitute change that was 180 degrees from DC and Harvey and everyone else at the time that set Marvel apart. All that was Stan.

 

McCartney = Kirby

Lennon = Lieber

 

your Beatles analogy is very astute, and surprisning revealing of ones personal slant on an issue. I gather you prefer Pauls tunes to John's songwriting, and therefore consider Paul the more creative one. But it is generally perceived as exacyly the opposite! Paul is the lighter one, the fluffier musician, more like your opinions of Stan at Marvel... while Lennon was in reality the darker, more serious artist, the Creator, fueling the pop ditties with a soul and purpose while Paul was seeking "hits".

 

Also. Its hard to think of Paul as the "forgotten Beatle" compared to John, so I cant see Paul as Kirby at all!

 

Nope, what i say is, what is more important, the music to the song, or the word-smithing to that song - fluff i was not thinking of, and as in any analogy attempted, is is entirely probable that others will see different or expanded insights into that analogy

 

I see the music as the foundation to something, the tune which stays in your brain - the words are the icing on the cake, so to speak

 

The original discussion was on creation seguing into ownership concepts - and all threads will meander into various paths, every once in a while hitting back on topic,

 

what Stan and crew did with the material after creation is actually a different topic, of sorts, i was coming from the concept of what Finger did in the creation of Batman on some levels inter-reacting with Bob Kane, plus Jerry Robinson, Moldoff, Sprang, Paris, etc

 

What i object to was the course Stan took in stating, or t least aiding and abetting reporters to state, that he was the creator, the man who made it all happen in the beginning - and that is something i will not let him get away with easily - nor, for that matter, will others happening upon this thread,

 

The tone of the comic strips after creation, after the Big Bang with each hero/heroine, that is something which more debate is in order, more research,

 

I thought of McCartney and Lennon ala Kirby and Lee cuz each was better as a team, post break up, not so fun as a whole, with only isolated instances of being great once again

 

Though, one has to admit, the characters Kirby came up with for his 4th world universe has a lot of potential - and one could readily ascertain that Kirby was no word-smith

 

Yes, i fully agree with,and have never disagreed with any one here, that Lee got comics religion in his word smithing in the 1960s, he was definitely inspired, but that does not mean he created the characters, which was what i was discussing in the original aspects of my alternate thread path of expanding discussing Silver Age here, on this Gold Thread.

 

I also originally brought up Otto Messmer creating Felix the Cat vs Pat Sullivan, who owned the character, and the fall out with all that, but no one picked up on it

[Zonker]

McCartney = Kirby

Lennon = Lieber

 

what's more important, the melody of the song or the words which go with it?

 

 

horrible analogy, I'm afraid. The Lennon-McCartney collaborations were not lyricist-melodist (like Bernie Taupin / Elton John). When they were actually collaborating -- prior to 1968 when they essentially turned in to studio musicians for each others' songs-- the primary Beatles songwriters generally traded riffs back and forth between each others' work. When John sings, that's usually 90%+ Lennon's words and music. When Paul sings, likewise. Note most all of John's songs are 1st person (Norwegian Wood, In My Life, Strawberry Fields Forever) while frequently Paul's are 3rd person (Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane). Probably their last major collaboration was "A Day in the Life" from Sgt. Peppers. John starts out "I read the news today oh boy..." then sings a couple of verses before the alarm clock rings and Paul starts in with "Got up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head..." then kicks it back to John for the final verse with the memorable (and very Lennonesque "now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall").

 

What I do think is relevant to your point is Lennon's role in editing some of McCartney's sillier flights of fancy (Magical Mystery Tour aside) and McCartney's role in keeping John's stuff accessible and commercial (Revolution #9 aside). Stan would have surely called Bull- on "Granny Goodness," and Jack would have surely made "Just Imagine...Stan Lee Creating the DC Universe" something other than a complete snooze-fest!

[BLBcomics-migration]

yeah. but Bob, as I said, or tried to say, "characters, shmaracters!" It was the tone, the irreverence, the attitute change that was 180 degrees from DC and Harvey and everyone else at the time that set Marvel apart. All that was Stan.

 

McCartney = Kirby

Lennon = Lieber

 

The analogy is very apt, though, since they too didnt get along and came to blows (at around the same time... a coincidence??) over who was getting proper credit for what. Just proves once again how hard it is to apportion credit when objects and ideas are birthed by committee, under deadline, for a buck! And nobody cares until there a lot of money at stake!

 

I forgot to add in here that the reason Stan began taking the lion's chare of credit, allowing the media to feed that myth propaganda style as the adage goes, you repeat the lie long enough, and loud enough, and all over the place, it becomes true. Perception becomes a reality.

 

Stan began the propaganda that he created it all because he was front man for the owners

[Aman619]

Be fair to Stan.... The Herald Tribune reporter came up to the offices to meet Stan and Jack. He didnt know jacksquat about Marvel or comics. He talks to them and Stan furnished the answers he seeks. And with relish, and poise and a clever marketing hook the guy could use for his article. Jack sits there quietly and when he finally speaks he croaks out an answer that while probably sincere and relevant, just "dont sell newspapers", so the reporter turns back to Stan.... and stays there. ( I cant wait for this scene to be made in a film or mini-series someday because its so pivotal and rich with dramatic tension. Stan as Reed Richards; Jack as Dr Doom, jealously plotting revenge on glib, weak, pathetic Stan for pushing him out of the spotlight when it was his own errors (in this case a near-total lack of PR skills akin to Victor's errors in calculations) that caused the rift.)

 

If I was Roz, sure Id be pissed at Stan, probably not for the first time! But Id be a little disappointed also in my man for not being able to stand up and sell himself, if selling was what it was going to take to be the front man of the duo as she must have wanted. Without Stan pimping Marvel in the media and on college campuses etc, Jack's work would have sunk back into the muck again as all the previous decades of work already had.

[Timulty]

I can understand that but when do you make the Saleman the creator of the books? Even the most blatant publicists don't have the gall to do that. Stan was at best working in a producer capacity, not creator. Ultimately, the producer gets rep but the creator gets credit. Nope, Stan got more than he deserved.

 

 

Excelsior my !!!

[Zonker]

not being able to stand up and sell himself, if selling was what it was going to take to be the front man of the duo

 

See, that was Kirby's blind spot... the business acumen. History repeats itself from Simon & Kirby to Lee & Kirby. And to get this thread completely back on-topic: ( Timulty!)

 

With the glaring exception of Will Eisner, the medium has never had one person be both a first-rate artist and a first-rate businessman.

 

And Bob Kane (or his dad) was a first-rate businessman.

[Aman619]

I can understand that but when do you make the Saleman the creator of the books? Even the most blatant publicists don't have the gall to do that. Stan was at best working in a producer capacity, not creator. Ultimately, the producer gets rep but the creator gets credit. Nope, Stan got more than he deserved.

 

 

Excelsior my !!!

 

well, I dint make the salesman the creator. But, Stan was FAR more than the salesman. Thats just ONE of th ehats he wore. Did he get TOO much credit? Yes. But I reject any notion that he was worthless, and theres more to "creator" than coming up with some or most of the pieces to a successful creation. Kirby, Ditko, Ayers, etc etc could NEVER have built Marvel into the success it was w/o Stan's guidance. Does anyone think Stan wasnt driving the train? Assigning tasks and overseeing everything? Ho much credit does he get as Editor in Chief - - keeping some ideas and losing others? Asking for changes and redraws etc.

 

Bob mentions the Marvel method where artists were expected to do full layouts and plotting. Yes, we all know that how it worked. But in the early days, wasny Stan handing out memos about what happens next to artists? And having quick metngs to determine the next issue's plot? How hard is it to assume that after a few years of this tighter Stan control early in the Marvel process, that he became overworked and relied (expected) the artists to do even more of the adance plotting, trusting them to make it such that he ned ONLY add dialogue? I sure see that evolution happening in evary business Ive worked in? You trust your guys to "get" the system as time goes on and leave moe of the process to them. It saves time and adds freedom to the staff. Of course it can backfire later on when they turn around and cliam to BE Marvel, not Stan.

 

Itake Jacks claims of Stan's uselessness the same way I read Stan's claims of Omnipotence!

[Foolkiller]

I don't think Stan gets too much credit. Spider Man was done without Jack Kirby and succeeded with two different artists: the great thing about Spidey was less the art and more the innovative storyline.

 

Kirby's 'successes' PALE in comparison without Stan. Directionless New Gods and other DCs -- and some other less than noteworthy work. As a creator, Jack did have enormous output and talent, but it was completely unfocussed, and borderline unreadable without Stan there to harness and guide it.

 

For that reason, Stan should and does deserve the lionshare of credit for Marvel Comics.

[ft88]

Once the idea is created and continuity is established, the rest is important but reliant on the original concept and there fore less important than originality. Frank Millers interpretation of Batman is vitally important but compared to his invention it pales in comparrison.

 

A modern successful storyline for Spiderman was the Hobgoblin. Without the classic death of Green goblin there is no hobgoblin. Without Lee/Romita's and Lee/Ditkos classic versions of the Green Goblin there is no death sequence. Without the creation of Spiderman there is no Green Goblin at all.

 

Spiderman and Batman belong to all of us. I'll take the unpopular view that it really doesn't matter who invented these characters, They really should be "open source" and anyone can create anything using these characters. If I draw a picutre of spdierman and sell it to you, have I violated a natural law? What if I copy it and sell 10,000 copies? What if I just gave them away for free. I should be allowed to create whatever the heck I want and sell them or give them away without breaking any silly patent/trademark law.

 

Let Stan Lee propagandize all he wants, We all have our opinions or researched "facts" to interpret as we see fit. I don't think the creators deserve any thing they didn't establish ahead of time. I'd write a Spidey comic for free if given the chance. If it became popular all of a sudden I don't deserve any of the proceeds, but my next venture would be a different contract (ie not free)

 

These trademark patent issues muck up the whole process. I say Open Source it all and let the cream rise to the top.

[Juswuh]

Here's a companion to the "first one who mentions Hitler loses" rule of internet argument:

 

When the Stan Vs Jack debate brings in Lennon and McCartney, it's time to give the subject a rest.

[Aman619]

I dont agree, nor see what that analogy has to do with good old Adolf. Lee/Kirby was a creative team that has their individual followers arguing years later "Who was Mas Macho?"! Similarly with Lennon/McCartney. End of comparison. Pretty harmless to me.

[BLBcomics-migration]

not being able to stand up and sell himself, if selling was what it was going to take to be the front man of the duo

 

See, that was Kirby's blind spot... the business acumen. History repeats itself from Simon & Kirby to Lee & Kirby. And to get this thread completely back on-topic: ( Timulty!)

 

With the glaring exception of Will Eisner, the medium has never had one person be both a first-rate artist and a first-rate businessman.

 

And Bob Kane (or his dad) was a first-rate businessman.

 

Business man? What you write does not make sense

 

Jack was not the PT Barnum PR man,but that has nothing to do with business as far as creating best selling comic books, which Kirby proved over and over for decades that people would buy his comic books - if he did not sell well, he would not have gotten the work he did continuously since he entered the business -

 

and he was used to royalties working with publishers

 

Harvey, Crestwood, his first run with DC in the 1940s, others - all 50-50 profit splits

 

S&K even went into self publishing with their Mainline comics group in 1954, bu8t they got placed with Leader, which also did the EC comics, and they entered with Mainline's first book Bullseye #1 right about the time Bill Gaines did his meth-amphetamine crash melt down on live national TV during the Senate investigation circa April 1954

 

- and the back & forth with Senator Keafavor re Crime SuspenStories 21 chopped off wife head cover

 

Everything Leader was distributing was returned unopened, and they went belly-up - and S&K as well as paper broker George Dougherty Jr, whose father was a printer at Eastern in 1934 when famous Funnies came off the printing press, lost $150,000 owed from EC as well as Mainline - so told to me by Mr Dougherty when i was interviewing him a decade ago.

 

The PT Barnum front man was a virtuoso in PR - i would not strike down Kirby because of that

[BLBcomics-migration]

I can understand that but when do you make the Saleman the creator of the books? Even the most blatant publicists don't have the gall to do that. Stan was at best working in a producer capacity, not creator. Ultimately, the producer gets rep but the creator gets credit. Nope, Stan got more than he deserved.

 

 

Excelsior my !!!

 

well, I dint make the salesman the creator. But, Stan was FAR more than the salesman. Thats just ONE of th ehats he wore. Did he get TOO much credit? Yes. But I reject any notion that he was worthless, and theres more to "creator" than coming up with some or most of the pieces to a successful creation. Kirby, Ditko, Ayers, etc etc could NEVER have built Marvel into the success it was w/o Stan's guidance. Does anyone think Stan wasnt driving the train? Assigning tasks and overseeing everything? Ho much credit does he get as Editor in Chief - - keeping some ideas and losing others? Asking for changes and redraws etc.

 

Bob mentions the Marvel method where artists were expected to do full layouts and plotting. Yes, we all know that how it worked. But in the early days, wasny Stan handing out memos about what happens next to artists? And having quick metngs to determine the next issue's plot? How hard is it to assume that after a few years of this tighter Stan control early in the Marvel process, that he became overworked and relied (expected) the artists to do even more of the adance plotting, trusting them to make it such that he ned ONLY add dialogue? I sure see that evolution happening in evary business Ive worked in? You trust your guys to "get" the system as time goes on and leave moe of the process to them. It saves time and adds freedom to the staff. Of course it can backfire later on when they turn around and cliam to BE Marvel, not Stan.

 

Itake Jacks claims of Stan's uselessness the same way I read Stan's claims of Omnipotence!

 

I am not, and have never said written or meant to imply that Stan Lieber is not/was not important in the evolution of the 1960s Marvel House of Ideas

 

If i may make a few comments here on your last paragraph, you seemingly forget the inconvenient truth that Kirby created (with Simon and whomever) numerous best selling comic books since 1941 when Capt America made S&K a house hold team name in the comic book world

 

- so much so that DC National took out house ads in their books touting the Simon & Kirby creative team

 

NO ONE else got such a treatment in the 1940s

 

Lee never seemed to come up with original ideas in the lead up into FF #! debuting

 

Most all of Marvel's output were genres originated by others

 

Kirby on the other hand invented genres with his partner Joe Simon

 

All of a sudden Stan getting creative juices comics religion in the 1960s more so than Kirby is a disconnect with me, I'm sorry, and I want to see where others think Stan did what he has claimed in so many interviews and comics talks he began is ernest once Jack Kirby died

 

and i wish all of this to occur in a civil debate, as i am working on aspects of my comics business history book and do not wish it to be just my views -fair and balanced is the key operative phrase here