Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 4 Next >>
Topic: Stan Lee’s Legacy (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 3:13pm | IP Logged | 1  

As far as to what Stan said about giving credit. That's all in the comics to see. As far as what Jack Kirby said. Well that is debatable. Since it is harder to prove his statements to be true and accurate. I think it comes down to that being Jack Kirby's point of view of what happened. Maybe it's all true. But maybe it isn't exactly how he remember it. I think it's important to remember that Jack Kirby said those things at a time when he wasn't happy with how the situation turned out so. Some bitterness was there on his part. Rightfully so of course. But really it wasn't Stan Lee's fault that Jack Kirby didn't reach the same level of financial success that he did. 

Stan Lee being a showman and huckster is why he became so wealthy. If wealthy is an accurate term. Since I don't really know what Stan's bank account looks like.


Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 07 July 2014 at 3:14pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3093
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 2  

Offering Kirby the art director job was great and all, but it was clearly not what Kirby wanted to do. Why didn't Lee give Kirby control of his own titles?

It's hard to imagine Kirby being given carte blanche on four Marvel comics the way he was at DC (at least until he returned to Marvel in the Seventies), but continuing to plot and draw FANTASTIC FOUR plus his own fiefdom on a couple other books in hindsight seems like a solution that Lee should have been pursued more aggressively. I've read somewhere INHUMANS was developed as a Kirby solo book but know little about it.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 3:44pm | IP Logged | 3  

Why should Stan have pursued it more aggressively? He didn't owe him that.

 If Jack Kirby didn't want what Stan offered that's fine. He is entitled to make that choice. But had he taken the job he would have gotten better pay and benefits as an employee of the company. 

But that is all a separate argument. Stan had no obligation to anyone other than himself. When it comes to securing success. 

But still he was the one responsible for giving credit to the artists and writers. 

It's sad really how people can say that Stan Lee stole credit from others. When it was Stan who began giving that credit in the first place. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15951
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 4  

One of Stan's biggest contributions to comics -- apart from co-creating some of the best superheroes characters and re-defining the entire genre -- was not having enough time to write full scripts.

It seems strange to damn Stan for having the wisdom and confidence to lean so heavily on the talents of his artists.

Yes, the heavy lifting probably was done by Ditko and Kirby in terms of long hours spent at the drafting table, pacing the stories, carrying the load of the visual storytelling.... BUT many of the elements of that hard-to-define magic that separated Spider-Man and the FF from the crowd seem to stem from Stan. Yes, Challengers of the Unknown is superficially similar to the FF, but the title is also clearly inferior. Stan sprinkled the magic dust on the goodies that Ditko and Kirby hammered out.

As to the Lennon-McCartney analogy, Lennon-McCartney is largely an attribution of convenience, rather than a reflection of how the songs actually came together. The earlier stuff apart, most songs were largely written by Lennon or McCartney. I prefer a Rodgers/Hammerstein analogy myself  :).
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 4:24pm | IP Logged | 5  

I like to make the comparison to films. 

The Screenwriter; Stan Lee 
Director; Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, John Romita etc..





Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 07 July 2014 at 4:25pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3093
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 4:41pm | IP Logged | 6  

I'm not accusing Stan of anything, Anthony. No, Marvel was never obligated to offer Kirby the kind of work he wanted, just as no company is obligated to offer anyone anything.

Since by everyone's account Kirby was Marvel's star artist, I just wonder why there was such a gap between the 60 pages of monthly creative control Kirby got at DC and the up to 8 pages Marvel was allowing him at the time he left. It's a question of business sense, not fundamental fairness.

Obviously there's the real world factor of Kirby never explicitly demanding that control to my knowledge -- Stan says he was surprised by Jack's dissatisfaction and Kirby apparently didn't broach the issue.

However, I don't think Lee has ever been asked if it ever occurred to him to offer Kirby anything along the lines of the DC deal. It'd be interesting to hear his thoughts.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 5:24pm | IP Logged | 7  

Sorry David, I didn't mean to imply you were. My comment was meant generally speaking.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Sommerville
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 417
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 8  

Business wise, wasn't the 60 pages of creative control Kirby received, less than successful at the time? I'm not saying it was bad work, just curious if it was popular work at the time.
I will admit I don't know how well his DC work sold at the time. I seem to recall that most of the Fourth World stuff was cancelled at about 12 issues.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4620
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 9  

Kirby's Fourth World titles were not a huge hit saleswise, but they weren't terrible sellers either.  From what I've read, the decision to cancel them was not entirely sales-based, since there were titles that were selling worse that were not cancelled.  One could argue that Infantino did not give the books time to find an audience (he tended to pull the plug on titles quickly during his tenure).  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 9:34pm | IP Logged | 10  

Jason makes a good point, here.  At Marvel, it usually took Kirby a number of books to find his groove.  Discontinue the Fantastic Four or Journey Into Mystery starring Thor at the same point Infantino pulled the plug on Kirby's DC books, and what would you have?  Some good books, but FF really hits its stride about the time Joe Sinnott returns as inker, i.e., 40 or so issues in, and Thor starts with stuff like "the Thunder God and the Thug" and such, until well into the run, the adventures begin to emphasize Asgard.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 10:21pm | IP Logged | 11  

Since this thread is now more about Kirby than Lee, this might be of interest:

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
Posted: 07 July 2014 at 10:33pm | IP Logged | 12  

One of the reasons Infantino discontinued the Fourth World titles was the belief that this vast interconnected saga was alienating readers rather than drawing them in. Who would ever want some vast, interlocking continuity where one can't find the start and will never see the end? Pfft! Nonsense! Comic readers will never go for it! 

However, knowing that Kirby was an unending font of new characters and titles, he figured he was practically doing Kirby a favor getting him out of this corner he'd backed himself into, having to write Fourth World stuff and only Fourth World stuff. Cancel them all, and Kirby's free to be Kirby again, coming up with new books like Kamandi, the Demon, Sandman, Manhunter, Atlas, and so on, forever, filling the DC coffers with new (or sometimes reinvigorated) concepts and characters that have nothing to do with the worlds of New Genesis and Apokolips.

I agree that Infantino pulled the plug much too soon, but he was also the one who put Colletta on the books and ordered Murphy Anderson to redraw all the Superman character heads. Once he made the right decision to bring Kirby in, it seems he couldn't stop making wrong decisions to somehow mitigate and undo that initial coup...

And really, no one had ever been let off the editorial chain prior to this. The idea of simply letting Kirby be Kirby was likely unimaginable to the editors who naturally felt that everybody needs to be, y'know, edited!

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 4 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login