So how much work did Bob Kane actually do?

[Forbush-Man]

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.

 

[ciorac]

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.

 

 

Bob, it has been great reading Aman and your debate over the past few pages! Great stuff from both sides.

 

One thing struck me with something said a couple of pages ago and the above exceprt from your post.

 

I will always be amongst the first in a group discussion to give Kirby ENORMOUS credit for everything he has contributed to modern comics as a whole. Not just his 60's work for Marvel, which was my personal favorite of his.

 

But it seems "credit" was a common theme with Jack. He created, along with Joe, an enormously popular character at Timely, Captain America, gets angry how is deal is structured, and bails. He couldn't take his ball home with him though. A similar story at DC in the 40's, and then Marvel in the 60's. Either he was a very poor business man, lost the edge on a character after a while, I don't know, but he sure seems to play the poor innocent sap role a lot in his career. Didn't he save any of the money he made in 50+ years in the business??? The genius who always got the short end of the stick through no fault of his own card is tiresome at best, and disingenuous at worst.

[Aman619]

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

 

Bob, what do you know of the man who appeared a few years ago claiming to have created WW (even sketching her) before going off to fight in WWII...only to return after a few years stint to see WW published and big hit - -- credited to another guy! He also said that when he went back to DC to his editor that he presented WW to, was met with ummm, and errrrrs, and given the Star Spangled Kid to draw as a make do.

 

ring a bell?? He claimed that ever sincem, he and his wife get physically ill each time they see or hear about WW. Reminds me of Roz vis a vis Stan!

[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

 

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

 

yes, as far as i know, still in place since 1941

 

That is one of the reasons WW has never ceased publication

[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

 

Bob, what do you know of the man who appeared a few years ago claiming to have created WW (even sketching her) before going off to fight in WWII...only to return after a few years stint to see WW published and big hit - -- credited to another guy! He also said that when he went back to DC to his editor that he presented WW to, was met with ummm, and errrrrs, and given the Star Spangled Kid to draw as a make do.

 

ring a bell?? He claimed that ever sincem, he and his wife get physically ill each time they see or hear about WW. Reminds me of Roz vis a vis Stan!

 

I was at that White Plains NY comicon in June 2000 where Harry Lampert unveiled his recovered memories theory - and it was written up by Will Murray in Comic Book Marketplace

 

Harry may have thought up a super woman concept at one point - i think it was a natural progression to go from super male to super female concepts

 

However, Marston was already at work on the thing with Charlie Gaines

[mica]

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?

 

yes, as far as i know, still in place since 1941

 

That is one of the reasons WW has never ceased publication

So basically the reason we've seen WW all these years is a "use it or lose it" scenario.

[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.

 

 

Bob, it has been great reading Aman and your debate over the past few pages! Great stuff from both sides.

 

One thing struck me with something said a couple of pages ago and the above exceprt from your post.

 

I will always be amongst the first in a group discussion to give Kirby ENORMOUS credit for everything he has contributed to modern comics as a whole. Not just his 60's work for Marvel, which was my personal favorite of his.

 

But it seems "credit" was a common theme with Jack. He created, along with Joe, an enormously popular character at Timely, Captain America, gets angry how is deal is structured, and bails. He couldn't take his ball home with him though. A similar story at DC in the 40's, and then Marvel in the 60's. Either he was a very poor business man, lost the edge on a character after a while, I don't know, but he sure seems to play the poor innocent sap role a lot in his career. Didn't he save any of the money he made in 50+ years in the business??? The genius who always got the short end of the stick through no fault of his own card is tiresome at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

My understanding is the CA thing was promises made, S&K were lied to, they did bail, but only because they were offered a better deal, first from MLJ (less than a month), then a 50-50 profit split with DC National, which they enjoyed the entire run of Boy Commandos and Newsboy Legion

 

Kirby came back to work for DC National following WW2

 

Once Simon got back, they got a better deal offer from Crestwood, is my understanding, DC National publishers got pissed, stopped talking to Simon, and S&K went off to Crestwood as well as Harvey

 

There is a short period there where Kirby is doing covers & stuff on Newsboy Legion and Boy Commandos, no Simon. Kirby followed Simon to Crestwood, he had no problem getting work from DC following WW2 - where are you getting your data Kirby had a 40s DC National problem?

 

i am still a little unsure on the exact time line here, i have it is notes i placed some where and need to re-find, as i did ask Simon on some of this stuff when i interviewed him for my Mainline article in Jack Kirby Collector 25 Special S&K issue in the late 1990s

 

Yes, the comic book business mostly dictated publishers retained copyright owenership

 

Kirby along with Simon doing the main negotiating, used long used to royalties, usually a 50-50 profit splits, as S&K were proven commodity sellers

 

What you call "poor innocent sap" i call some one who chose to believe some one when that some one says something one wants to believe.

 

Big difference in terminology

 

I have no idea whether Kirby saved any of his money from 50+ years in the comics biz

 

That has nothing t do with the issue at hand here, though, which was Kirby, and Ditko, were promised a royalty split which kept being put off, with Ditko bailing from Marvel in 1966.

 

Who invented Xmen is what i want to know - i have never explored that group yet, and i need to cover that ground soon. Also, who invented Daredevil?

 

I do not claim to know everything, but i do know a lot of the history

 

I suspect we will keep learning until we die

[tth2]

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?

 

yes, as far as i know, still in place since 1941

 

That is one of the reasons WW has never ceased publication

So basically the reason we've seen WW all these years is a "use it or lose it" scenario.

It's the best explanation I've heard so far.

[BLBcomics-migration]

seems to me that there was a time span circa 1986-87 when the original series numbering died, and before the new one began Feb 1987 by George Perez that there was a 4 issue mini-series by Trina Robbins , if i remember correctly

 

yes, ther eit is the OPG Legend of Wonder Woman 1-4 mini may thru Aug 1986

 

and this was to adhere to the terms of the original contract

[Aman619]

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

 

Bob, what do you know of the man who appeared a few years ago claiming to have created WW (even sketching her) before going off to fight in WWII...only to return after a few years stint to see WW published and big hit - -- credited to another guy! He also said that when he went back to DC to his editor that he presented WW to, was met with ummm, and errrrrs, and given the Star Spangled Kid to draw as a make do.

 

ring a bell?? He claimed that ever sincem, he and his wife get physically ill each time they see or hear about WW. Reminds me of Roz vis a vis Stan!

 

I was at that White Plains NY comicon in June 2000 where Harry Lampert unveiled his recovered memories theory - and it was written up by Will Murray in Comic Book Marketplace

 

Harry may have thought up a super woman concept at one point - i think it was a natural progression to go from super male to super female concepts

 

However, Marston was already at work on the thing with Charlie Gaines

 

thats what I was talking about . thanx.

I am a bit surprised you have so liitle empathy or credence in Lampert's story. It seems like in this case you are willing to accept the publishers story over the little guy. Do those who listened to Marston think he dreamed this up?? Didnt he say he created "Wonder Woman"? not just a female Superman? I know I always found it strange that the inventor of the lie-detector created a superheroine out of the blue? Or was he a famed fiction writer all along?

[Foolkiller]

This has been interesting reading, but to me, none of what Bob has mentioned convinces me that Kirby deserves any more credit than he gets by most, and that Stan does, as he should, get the lionshare of credit for Marvel's success in the 60s and modern comics.

 

Jack had some great creative accomplishments, but I again point to his completely unfocussed efforts in the 70s as evidence of failure to be successful. Stan was successful with many different artists. Kirby showed his most enduring success in the SA and I really find his GA work to be kinda of blah.

 

The stories etc are interesting about who said what and what their accounts were... the truth is, we'll never know the whole truth. What I know is that Lee succeeded with Kirby, with Ditko, with Romita, with Buscema, with Don Freakin' Heck. The books sold. The books endure like Spidey because they are still fun reads. The stories are what are compelling and what made them so different was that the stories were about heroes who weren't like other heroes. What Kirby contributed to the psychology of the heroes I think remains a mystery. I would suspect not a whole lot.

 

I see Kirby as someone who saw himself greater than he actually was.

[mica]

What I know is that Lee succeeded with Kirby, with Ditko, with Romita, with Buscema, with Don Freakin' Heck.

All of those you mentioned were great artists. Let's see how Lee does if all he had was Frank Robbins.

The books sold. The books endure like Spidey because they are still fun reads. The stories are what are compelling and what made them so different was that the stories were heroes weren't like other heroes.

Really? Then cut out all the word balloons and paste them in a scrap book.

Then read that scrap book. "Gee whilikers I better get home before Aunt May wakes up." "Sure wish I could get my hands on some more money" "Hopefully JJJ will buy some of my photos I took of that wharehouse burglary" (not bad but images sure would help )

What Kirby contributed to the psychology of the heroes I think remains a mystery. In fact I would suspect not a whole lot.

 

I see Kirby as someone who saw himself greater than he actually was.

Oh right. You're thinking of John Byrne

[Foolkiller]

What I know is that Lee succeeded with Kirby, with Ditko, with Romita, with Buscema, with Don Freakin' Heck.

All of those you mentioned were great artists. Let's see how Lee does if all he had was Frank Robbins.

The books sold. The books endure like Spidey because they are still fun reads. The stories are what are compelling and what made them so different was that the stories were heroes weren't like other heroes.

Really? Then cut out all the word balloons and paste them in a scrap book.

Then read that scrap book. "Gee whilikers I better get home before Aunt May wakes up." "Sure wish I could make get my hands on some more money" "Hopefully JJJ will buy some of my photos I took of that wharehouse burglary" (not bad but images sure would help )

What Kirby contributed to the psychology of the heroes I think remains a mystery. In fact I would suspect not a whole lot.

 

I see Kirby as someone who saw himself greater than he actually was.

Oh right. You're thinking of John Byrne

 

Don Heck was a great artist? Really? I think not.

 

I'm not saying the art wasn't important at all, but I think even Romita himself would admit that it was Stan more than he who drove the success of Spider Man.

 

I agree about Byrne though.

[mica]

Don Heck was a great artist? Really? I think not.

I bet a few of the amatuer artist on these boards would disagree with you. I haven't asked Red but I'm sure he'd agree although he's more of a Ditko fan.

You bet Heck was good. Kirby even thought that out of all the Bullpen artists Heck drew the best female characters. (although quoting Kirby probably doesn't wow you )

 

I'm not saying the art wasn't important at all,

Good, because the art was stunning. Even the Severin and Trimpe artists were great.

I like Stan Lee, but if you are going to praise him don't do it at the expense of Kirby.

If I'm reading your post wrong then disregard.

but I think even Romita himself would admit that it was Stan more than he who drove the success of Spider Man.

Romita sounds like a swell guy.

I agree about Byrne though.

[Aman619]

Don Heck was a heck of an artist. A very talented and respected Pro. unfortunately, his Marvel Comics work was so UN-Kirby, UN-exciting, and Un-palatable that he became the Official "hack" of the Marvel Staff. I never like his work for Marvel and found his titles easy to skim without reading... but I do think he was a great strip artists who could draw the pants off of most guys working today. (A whole lot, for sure!) Just not too many superhero fans' cup of tea.

[lou_fine]

I am a bit surprised you have so liitle empathy or credence in Marsto'sn story. It seems like in this case you are willing to accept the publishers story over the little guy. Do those who listened to Marston think he dreamed this up?? Didnt he say he created "Wonder Woman"? not just a female Superman? I know I always found it strange that the inventor of the lie-detector created a superheroine out of the blue? Or was he a famed fiction writer all along?

 

Aman;

 

Have you read the book "Men of Tomorrow" yet?

 

It has quite a few pages talking about Marston and his creation of Wonder Woman. Some extremely interesting stuff there to say the least.

 

Basically the book states that Marston had pretty well hit the end of his academic professorial career in the late 1920's after publishing some rather popular, but not so respected theories that he had come up with. Not surprising for a man who got into an affair with his graduate student research assistant. Upon telling his wife about the affair, was able to draw everybody closer together by having the mistress move in with the family. Really a menage a trois whereby he fathered two children with each of the woman. On top of that, all the children were basically raised by the mistress while the wife supported the entire family with a series of academic and editorial jobs.

 

 

By the 1940's, Marston was nothing more than a fallen intellectual surviving on sales pitches. According to the book, Marston believed that "women were stronger than men because they wielded the force of love, that war and evil were produced by men's violent quest for illusory power over women, and that secretly boys and men were looking for an exciting, beautiful girl stronger than they are ............ Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should rule the world. His explanation of the world's ills (and perhaps his secret to happy polygamy), was that hatred and violence could be eliminated only by the surrender of male power to female."

 

Book goes on to explain his theory on the secret of women's allure being that they enjoy submission and being bound. This is the rationale for so many bondage scenes in the early Wonder Woman stories.

 

Some other psychological and scientific mumbo jumbo, but you should get the general drift that WW was created out of Marston's mind and not simply out of the blue.

[lou_fine]

Jerry & Joe, Irwin said, got their contract re-negotiated in 1940 to reflect the Kane version, were paid over half a million dollars each in the ten year duration 1938-1948. Royalties were also paid big time to the Simon & Kirby team, with S&K ads running in the DCs beginning in 1942, the first time a creative teams names were used to promote the comic books they had stuff in.

with books like Boy Commandos 1 and 2 being the largest sellers for DC when they came out

 

In addition, Jerry & Joe got ALL the substantial money from the Superman newspaper syndication plus ALL the money from the Fleischer animated cartoons - which was in addition to the royalties paid by DC National

 

Irwin was adamant Jerry & Joe would have been taken care for life like Kane was if they had not sued the Donenfelds following WW2 over Superboy which soon escalated to an attempt to wrest total control of Superman away from the publisher who had taken the bigger risk publishing Action in the first place. #4 was hitting the stands before final sales figures were in on #1. for example

 

Bob;

 

I guess it's going to be almost impossible to pin down the exact truth now that the main characters have all passed away. It seems that everybody has a slightly different interpretation as yours seems to be from Irwin Donefeld's point of view.

 

Based upon my reading of "Men of Tomorrow", it would indicate that Jerry was extremely unhappy with what he was receiving from DC and felt that he was simply not being paid the money that was owed and promised to both him and Joe. Rather ironic that Jerry who always took the hard line and lawsuit approach was able to get work from DC in the 60's. Poor Joe, on the other hand, who simply went along with whatever Jerry said was the one who really lost out in the end.

 

And yes, I do believe that Donenfeld and DC would have look after the boys for life if they had play along and never gone ahead with the lawsuit. Not in the manner in which Jerry felt they should have, but DC did seem to place some value and reward employees for company loyalty. Probably due in no small part to the old brotherly ties and gang culture that Donenfeld was raised on.

[Aman619]

Ive made a dent in the book... but have not picked it up again in a while.

 

But I dunno... all that sounds like good research and a good story. But if thats the whole truth (and nothing but) I ask you, Is Lampert crazy? Did he hallucinate creating a Woman Wonder for DC? Is it also possible then, knowing what we (you especally!) know about Lebowitz et al...... isnt it PROBABLE that this poor schmo discussed a WW character, showed some sketched (he WAS an artist, it was easy! two seconds and "wham! here she is, Murray!" That he discussed it - - -pitched it even... but went off to war, and Jack/Murray whoever gave the spark to Marston and it was right up his alley, who ran with it.. Kid comes back.... ready to pick up the conversation, or take over "his' character andgets told "Nope. Youre out!"

 

I dunno. Though I defend Stan (the overlord/'villain' in the same scenario at 60s Marvel...) seems to me that unless Lampert imagined it all, that HE was the victim of broken promises, or just good old American hard ball comics publishing bidness!!! no?

 

Hes the Bill Finger of WW. Or less so since he never worked on her at all, but still, did he "create" her? Did he point them in the right direction? methinks so.

[Scrooge]

Don Heck was a great artist? Really? I think not.

 

Yes he could.

 

Evidence # 1 -

[markseifert]

But I dunno... all that sounds like good research and a good story. But if thats the whole truth (and nothing but) I ask you, Is Lampert crazy? Did he hallucinate creating a Woman Wonder for DC?

 

I am not familiar with the details of Lampert's claims, but here is one angle to consider: according to the wikipedia on Marston, the original name of the character he pitched to All-American was "Suprema". The article goes on to say that it was Sheldon Mayer who changed the name to Wonder Woman.

 

Obviously this is pure speculation, but perhaps the concept of a female superhero was "in the air" at the time at All-American, no doubt numerous ideas for new characters were being discussed all the time in the office. Since the name came from Mayer and not from Marston, perhaps Wonder Woman was a name that was kicking around the office at the time, and Lampert (I've seen him described as on staff at All-American, presumably he worked in the office for a time) was in on those discussions.

 

That's a long ways from creating "the" Wonder Woman, obviously. But since the name didn't come from Marston, there's just a tiny bit of room there for the possibility that Lampert was involved in brainstorming on a character named Wonder Woman while at All-American.

 

Are there any Mayer interviews out there that mention him changing the name and how that came about?