So how much work did Bob Kane actually do?

[Aman619]

only in the sense that he hated Stans ease at selling himself. Of course, in the larer sense, you're right, an artist shouldnt HAVE to be adept at salesmanship. The art should speak for itself. On what planet we are speaking of, however, I do not know. : )

 

Almost every artist I can think of needed a salesman to promote the name and talent if they were unable to do so themselves. Id also add that men like Kirby, though the ranks below his master status, received repeated assignments NOT because they SOLD well, but rather because they were dependable, met deadlines, and werent prima donnas about themselves. And if they were, they were DAMNedd good at drawing and had a large dependable fanbase. but, that came along later on as most comics artists were pretty much anonymous outside the DC and Atlas offices back then. Hence the "good Duck artist" since nobody knew his name.

[BLBcomics-migration]

only in the sense that he hated Stans ease at selling himself. Of course, in the larer sense, you're right, an artist shouldnt HAVE to be adept at salesmanship. The art should speak for itself. On what planet we are speaking of, however, I do not know. : )

 

Almost every artist I can think of needed a salesman to promote the name and talent if they were unable to do so themselves. Id also add that men like Kirby, though the ranks below his master status, received repeated assignments NOT because they SOLD well, but rather because they were dependable, met deadlines, and werent prima donnas about themselves. And if they were, they were DAMNedd good at drawing and had a large dependable fanbase. but, that came along later on as most comics artists were pretty much anonymous outside the DC and Atlas offices back then. Hence the "good Duck artist" since nobody knew his name.

 

I agree with what you write here, most artists were anon to the world for way too long - and were lousy self-promoters

 

But back in the 1940s, DC National took out house ads touting the Simon & Kirby team as the main selling point to buying the DC National comic books the team was creating

 

NO ONE ever got such a promo advert campaign than S&K back then

 

why is that?

 

But i also reiterate that much of the reason Stan started taking all the credit is he was fronting for Martin Goodman and the copyright ownership concerns which got raised in the mid 1960s when Siegel and Shuster began their 28 year copyright renewal fight to reclaim their creation's ownership concepts

 

Goes waaaay beyond the creative debate going on here re how did what on any individual story line, etc etc etc

 

does this make sense?

[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.

 

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

 

Huh?

 

The point I was making was that most accounts I have read suggest it was Kirby that was cranking out the lion's share of the Simon & Kirby output, while Simon was running their studio, negotiating with the suits, getting all those deals you mention above. If your research has revealed otherwise, my apologies, and I'll look forward to reading your book.

[tth2]

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!

Very good points! Although I would say their real collaboration probably stopped around 1966, with minimal input from one on the other's songs after that point.

 

I also hate when people always say that Paul was the "pop" guy. My response is always "So which one wrote "Helter Skelter" again?"

[Aman619]

well, Bob, since you are writing abook about it, Id sure like to try to change your mind. But, Im pretty sure thats not remotely possible once you "do your homework." So, go for it! I dont want to denigrate Jack and Steve and all the rest in order to defend Stan. But you cant write comics histoey with an anti-Stan bias and and get it right! Stan's influence over the Silver Age Marvel Comics revolution is indisputable, and he more than earned his place next to Kirby (and Ditko) , and anyone attempting to write comics history without acknowledging this fact is writing a slanted hatchet job not a reference book. You can lament that Jack doesnt get ENOUGH credit, and that Stan gets too much, but you cant ignore Stan Lees contribitions.

[ft88]

If Kirby and Ditko came on board Marvel exactly when FF 1 was created then there would be more argument to credit they're contribution. That they were spitting out the monster/UFO dribble during the 50s speaks volumes about whats more important, ideas or great artwork.

 

The idea was to copy JLA using rehashed superhero's. Create a real-time, real New York, with real problems and see if it stuck. It did. Other ideas they tossed around were creating an "adult comic book that respects your intelligence". That didn't stick. We can't say that concept failed because Kirby and Ditko art sucked or that Stan's concept was bad.

 

I imagine they tossed around ideas over coffee. Some worked brilliantly and others didn't. Who generated the actaul dialogue or drew the pen and ink is in reality a minor detail. Even if you went back in time and saw the details of the colaboration, you could interpret the importance of anything in a number of ways.

(whats more important, the real setting? the heroes bickering? the artwork? the dialogue? no costumes/secret ids? the overall universe? and on and on)

 

Given Stan Lees over the top persona, I can only image he had everything to do with those creative inputs. Which ones were the real magic formula is an angels and needle point debate.

[mica]

That they were spitting out the monster/UFO dribble

Some of it is quite enjoyable

 

The idea was to copy JLA using rehashed superhero's. Create a real-time, real New York, with real problems and see if it stuck. It did.

They did indeed do this...but it was the Avengers. The FF was a great idea, which would fill volumes to gush over them.

[ft88]

That they were spitting out the monster/UFO dribble

Some of it is quite enjoyable

 

In a Kitschey way yes, but there's a reason this type of stuff ended in its format.

 

The idea was to copy JLA using rehashed superhero's. Create a real-time, real New York, with real problems and see if it stuck. It did.

They did indeed do this...but it was the Avengers. The FF was a great idea, which would fill volumes to gush over them.

 

Mr Fantastic = Plastic Man

Human Torch = Human Torch

Invisible Girl = I can't remember but its not original, Vision?

Thing = OK, especially as created he's original as can be.

[Aman619]

But back in the 1940s, DC National took out house ads touting the Simon & Kirby team as the main selling point to buying the DC National comic books the team was creating.

 

NO ONE ever got such a promo advert campaign than S&K back then

 

why is that?

 

well, its apples and oranges, in a way. You cannot compare the early 40s to the early 60s in terms of how the publishers marketed their talent. In the early 40s (the 1940s not the 1840s! : ) ) it was all new, being done for the first time, comics-wise. For DC to capitalize on their new name talent made sense. In a pitched battle where everyone was selling well, why NOT boast that THEIR best-selling shop are now OUR guys. (Werent these ads directed at the trade for the most part anyway? In the early 60s however NOBODY was a great seller! And any acclaim Kirby et al had in the 40s was rubbed totally off, and he and the rest were lucky to even get an assignment! This was a time when most work went unsigned and anonymous outside the shops producing them. Sounds like a case of What have you done for me lately business negotiation, and there was no reason or inclination to tout the talent amymore.

 

 

But i also reiterate that much of the reason Stan started taking all the credit is he was fronting for Martin Goodman and the copyright ownership concerns which got raised in the mid 1960s when Siegel and Shuster began their 28 year copyright renewal fight to reclaim their creation's ownership concepts

 

Goes waaaay beyond the creative debate going on here re how did what on any individual story line, etc etc etc

 

does this make sense?

 

Im glad you finally explained your use of "fronting" for Goodman. Yeah, this also was a piece of the puzzle. If Stan, as full-time employee, created all the characters, nobody could later claim ownership. But it was unnecessary. Overkill, really. Absent a signed contract a la Kane's, NOBODY EVER OWNED any comic creation they worked on that was published by the cartels. You worked for Lebowitz or Goodman, you knew the score.

 

That they still hoped for apiece of the pie later on is to be human, to expect a "fair shake." But they never had it coming, legally speaking. I maintain that in the early Marvel days, after a long drought, Kirby and the rest had ZERO expectations that Marvel or DC would ever rise again. And, therefore, concentrated on getting as high a page rate as they could beg for, and working their tails off producing as many pages as possible a week, to maximize this new "good thing" while it lasted. And Kirby, being as prolific as he was, was raking it in! I havent seen any pay stubs to prove it, but I figure he outgrossed Stan back then (one reason he never took an executive position at Marvel - - too sweet as a freelancer. Id love to see some earnings statements to back this up.)

 

Lets face it, It wasnt supposed to still be going strong 46 years later! And Spidey was never supposed to be a Billion dollar property!! Who knew?

[Aman619]

If Kirby and Ditko came on board Marvel exactly when FF 1 was created then there would be more argument to credit they're contribution. That they were spitting out the monster/UFO dribble during the 50s speaks volumes about whats more important, ideas or great artwork.

 

The idea was to copy JLA using rehashed superhero's. Create a real-time, real New York, with real problems and see if it stuck. It did. Other ideas they tossed around were creating an "adult comic book that respects your intelligence". That didn't stick. We can't say that concept failed because Kirby and Ditko art sucked or that Stan's concept was bad.

 

I imagine they tossed around ideas over coffee. Some worked brilliantly and others didn't. Who generated the actaul dialogue or drew the pen and ink is in reality a minor detail. Even if you went back in time and saw the details of the colaboration, you could interpret the importance of anything in a number of ways.

(whats more important, the real setting? the heroes bickering? the artwork? the dialogue? no costumes/secret ids? the overall universe? and on and on)

 

Given Stan Lees over the top persona, I can only image he had everything to do with those creative inputs. Which ones were the real magic formula is an angels and needle point debate.

 

you know, any collaborative effort will be difficult to go back and apportion proper credit! Especially so when the product/idea was hatched as "crappola", on a quick deadline, for kids, and in a toally disrespected genre! Nobody remembers clearly who did what cause nobody cared at the time!

[BLBcomics-migration]

well, Bob, since you are writing abook about it, Id sure like to try to change your mind. But, Im pretty sure thats not remotely possible once you "do your homework." So, go for it! I dont want to denigrate Jack and Steve and all the rest in order to defend Stan. But you cant write comics histoey with an anti-Stan bias and and get it right! Stan's influence over the Silver Age Marvel Comics revolution is indisputable, and he more than earned his place next to Kirby (and Ditko) , and anyone attempting to write comics history without acknowledging this fact is writing a slanted hatchet job not a reference book. You can lament that Jack doesnt get ENOUGH credit, and that Stan gets too much, but you cant ignore Stan Lees contribitions.

 

I am not ignoring Stan's multi-tudenous contributions to the Marvel House of Ideas pantheon. He did indeed turn into a Comics Shakespeare, as the bullpen's inspiration bounced off one another in the early days, but as promises made were not kept, key creators became fed up with the feudal system of "work for hire" imposed from above, disregarding the earlier promises of royalties once the comics empire ship of Martin Goodman right itself, producing profits in black ink, rather than hemorrhaging and Stan was the messenger of those dictates, part of job description of being Editor-In-Chief while not being the owner.

 

From my perspective I do not think i am writing with an anti-stan bias, though it surely can maybe appear that way to the casual observer from the truncated snippets presented here. I am attempting to set the record straight. I can always have my mind altered thru Spock-Logic whether Stan created more than i think he did. And finding those elusive sources of the Comics Nile is a fun hobby. There is a wealth of data spanning decades from which to sift thru

 

.

 

 

[mica]

Mr Fantastic = Plastic Man He went well beyond that goofball. Not only his body but we always got the sense that his mind expanded as well.

Human Torch = Human Torch Same but different

Invisible Girl = I can't remember but its not original, Vision?H.G. Wells

Thing = OK, especially as created he's original as can be.

A walking tragedy with a full range of emotions not only just in him, but emotional responses from the reader.

 

What other group of characters can slip aboard a rocket violate airspace and federal laws yet not even get brought in for questioning upon returning to earth.

And the greatness kept flowing.

Going well beyond JLA whom Aunt Petunia didn't even bother reading.

[BLBcomics-migration]

[

The point I was making was that most accounts I have read suggest it was Kirby that was cranking out the lion's share of the Simon & Kirby output, while Simon was running their studio, negotiating with the suits, getting all those deals you mention above. If your research has revealed otherwise, my apologies, and I'll look forward to reading your book.

 

That is the account as presented - I agree- Kirby was indeed the main creator of the two

 

- one only has to look as far as the Statement of Ownerships in their self-published Mainline comics group to see Joe Simon listed as publisher, Jack Kirby listed as editor. And their line of comics was quite good, having inspected every issue as i collected them when i did an article on Mainline for Jack Kirby Collector #25 special S&K issue in the late 1990s.

 

I interviewed Joe Simon then several times, getting him to recollect jogging his memory, we got to the point where he said he was thinking of holding back telling me some tidbits s he could put them into THE COMIC BOOK MAKERS #2, which i doubt will ever see print, but that man was always working the angles, to his credit.

 

I also supplied Joe with the one Mainline comic book he was missing from his collection - that was fun. We traded for a dup he had that i needed at the time.

 

 

Your point goes along with my point that Kirby was the main creator of S&K.

 

So along comes L&K in the 196-s, a super hero evolution comes along

 

who created it?

 

Lee? who had never before created anything original in lis life, always following the genres originated by others - where are his earlier contribs of original ground-breaking genres in the comics? If i am missing something here, please enlighten me, someone? anyone?

 

or Kirby, a proven creator of original ideas in comics

 

I have no problem giving Lee credit for expanding on the ideas, inspired by them no less, but creating them out of whole cloth - any type of Big Bang - that i have a problem with based on decades of historical record to examine and found wanting.

[Timulty]

That they were spitting out the monster/UFO dribble

Some of it is quite enjoyable

 

In a Kitschey way yes, but there's a reason this type of stuff ended in its format.

 

The idea was to copy JLA using rehashed superhero's. Create a real-time, real New York, with real problems and see if it stuck. It did.

They did indeed do this...but it was the Avengers. The FF was a great idea, which would fill volumes to gush over them.

 

Mr Fantastic = Plastic Man

Human Torch = Human Torch

Invisible Girl = I can't remember but its not original, Vision?

Thing = OK, especially as created he's original as can be.

 

Invisible Girl = Phantom Lady

The Thing = The Thing

[BLBcomics-migration]

But back in the 1940s, DC National took out house ads touting the Simon & Kirby team as the main selling point to buying the DC National comic books the team was creating.

 

NO ONE ever got such a promo advert campaign than S&K back then

 

why is that?

 

well, its apples and oranges, in a way. You cannot compare the early 40s to the early 60s in terms of how the publishers marketed their talent. In the early 40s (the 1940s not the 1840s! : ) ) it was all new, being done for the first time, comics-wise. For DC to capitalize on their new name talent made sense. In a pitched battle where everyone was selling well, why NOT boast that THEIR best-selling shop are now OUR guys. (Werent these ads directed at the trade for the most part anyway? In the early 60s however NOBODY was a great seller! And any acclaim Kirby et al had in the 40s was rubbed totally off, and he and the rest were lucky to even get an assignment! This was a time when most work went unsigned and anonymous outside the shops producing them. Sounds like a case of What have you done for me lately business negotiation, and there was no reason or inclination to tout the talent amymore.

 

 

But i also reiterate that much of the reason Stan started taking all the credit is he was fronting for Martin Goodman and the copyright ownership concerns which got raised in the mid 1960s when Siegel and Shuster began their 28 year copyright renewal fight to reclaim their creation's ownership concepts

 

Goes waaaay beyond the creative debate going on here re how did what on any individual story line, etc etc etc

 

does this make sense?

 

Im glad you finally explained your use of "fronting" for Goodman. Yeah, this also was a piece of the puzzle. If Stan, as full-time employee, created all the characters, nobody could later claim ownership. But it was unnecessary. Overkill, really. Absent a signed contract a la Kane's, NOBODY EVER OWNED any comic creation they worked on that was published by the cartels. You worked for Lebowitz or Goodman, you knew the score.

 

That they still hoped for apiece of the pie later on is to be human, to expect a "fair shake." But they never had it coming, legally speaking. I maintain that in the early Marvel days, after a long drought, Kirby and the rest had ZERO expectations that Marvel or DC would ever rise again. And, therefore, concentrated on getting as high a page rate as they could beg for, and working their tails off producing as many pages as possible a week, to maximize this new "good thing" while it lasted. And Kirby, being as prolific as he was, was raking it in! I havent seen any pay stubs to prove it, but I figure he outgrossed Stan back then (one reason he never took an executive position at Marvel - - too sweet as a freelancer. Id love to see some earnings statements to back this up.)

 

Lets face it, It wasnt supposed to still be going strong 46 years later! And Spidey was never supposed to be a Billion dollar property!! Who knew?

 

I only brought up the 40s DC S&K house ads touting the creative team to establish that Kirby had his creative chops proven long before in originating "new". The house ads i refer to ran in the DC comic books directed at tho paying retail, not directed at sellers, whom could probably have given a hoot, much less a holler.

 

Stan does not - and he magically gets creative with "new" in the 1960s when Kirby is the proven commodity doing that very thing?

 

Kirby was fully used to 50-50 royalty splits, having begun such a concept with Goodman in 1941 with Capt America - paying of same Goodman reneged on, lying about profits, S&K split, end up with DC National, where they are treated well, Boy Commandos still paying royalties to their families while they are away doing war stuff

 

And on thru their career, Crestwood paid them royalties, harvey paid them royalties, etc

 

So, it would be natural for Kirby to say he had some new ideas, and wanted to split the profits

 

And Ditko early on worked for S&K in Black Magic as well as Captain 3-D, so they knew each other. Artists talk,

 

"Hoping" is much less than being "promised" once the company got back on its feet.

 

Ditko was quite adamant when we talked with him via phone in 1969 - he was promised. He also tried to get Kirby to walk away also in 1966 - he said so

 

I have different, more, info than some of you, I guess, which makes my perspective that much different in how i look at what happened

[ft88]

First rule of journalism - be skeptical of everything people tell you.

Rule 2: Everyone has bias.

[BLBcomics-migration]

First rule of journalism - be skeptical of everything people tell you.

Rule 2: Everyone has bias.

 

yes, indeed, well acquainted with the rules you quote

 

I have been very skeptical of Stan Lee's over the top claims ever since

 

1) listening to Steve Ditko on the phone back in 1969; a little bit later on i was tuning into Jerry Siegel's copyright fight to reclaim Superman

 

2) finding the 1966 NY Herald Tribune article on Marvel and then later discussing same with Roz Kirby at a san Diego comicon at the El Cortez hotel

 

3) when the ORIGINS of Marvel comics books came out with those Stan Lee forwards

 

among many other tidbits

 

I also do not accept Jack Kirby's claims that Stan did nothing

 

I will say that Stan was way more over the top than Jack -

 

and then i began studying Martin Goodman, learned about the 1941 royalty promise - and the 1960s deja vu all over again

 

I try very hard not to inject any personal bias into examining these creation myths and origin stories, whether it be Finger/Kane, Ditko/Lee, Kirby/Lee, Siegel&Shuster/Weisinger, the later claiming invention of Superman way beyond what he should get either.

 

My doubts to popular corporate myth began when i read a Sam Moskowitz book on SF creators which was published in the mid 1960s and the chapter on Mort Weisinger was titled SUPERMAN/ I think the book was called Masters of Imagination, I have it around here some where

[markseifert]

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.

 

Probably not precisely on point, but there is also the interesting case of William Marston, who held a PhD from Harvard, spent a year as Universal Studios' Director of Public Services, and developed a medical test which became a component of the modern polygraph, all before he created Wonder Woman.

 

I have always heard that his deal with Max Gaines allowed him to retain some ownership in Wonder Woman, but I don't believe I've ever heard any details on that.

[BLBcomics-migration]

The basic deal re Wonder Woman was this:

 

profit splits

 

if WW is published less than four times per year, full ownership reverts to Marston family

 

This is what Paul Levitz confirmed for me some time ago

[markseifert]

The basic deal re Wonder Woman was this:

 

profit splits

 

if WW is published less than four times per year, full ownership reverts to Marston family

 

This is what Paul Levitz confirmed for me some time ago

 

Very interesting. The deal in that basic form is still in place?