| Author |
|
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
|
| Posted: 05 November 2014 at 1:22pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The way I read it, Goodman was concerned that his plans to sell Marvel in 1968 might be derailed by the perception that Kirby (a freelancer) had creative credit / ownership of certain characters.
Also, as I read it, Goodman actually complained at one point that Jack was making too much money from Marvel.
That no love was lost between Goodman and Kirby appears evident: what is also evident is that Stan might have been Kirby's greatest fan in the 1958-1970 Marvel years.
That Goodman was actively looking to sell Marvel in 1968 speaks volumes about his lack of vision regarding the actual value of the company's characters. Wonder if he was cash-strapped.
Edited to add the questions:
Are there any other "significant" samples of Lee scripts that have emerged from around period (12 months before or after FF 1)?
Are there equivalent scripts for Spider-Man 1 or The Hulk 1?
Wouldn't a single extant "significant" Early Marvel Age Lee script be an anomaly rather than SOP?
And how quickly did this approach become the Marvel Method?
Edited by Jesus Garcia on 05 November 2014 at 1:28pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6854
|
| Posted: 05 November 2014 at 7:08pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"Now all they need to do is put Kirby's name first and all will be set to rights."
It's just never gonna end with this type of fan, is it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2067
|
| Posted: 05 November 2014 at 8:21pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Collaboration is the key word here. Why resist such a beautiful word that so perfectly describes such wonderful results?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wally Coppage
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 October 2014
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 2:41am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
With all due respect Mr. Byrne, I'm not sure if alluding to the possibility that Stan Lee would stoop to hiding a typed plot in a desk, so as to be able to pull out and exhibit as evidence if his input was ever questioned, is all that absurd. It's quite possible that in the confusions of the time, and with the rising fortunes of Marvel being what they were, that Stan procured a new desk at some point and simply forgot about this evidence to support his creative input on FF #1.
Stan was big on credits and it can't be denied that a big part of this was to make sure everyone knew he was one of the masterminds behind The Marvel Age. Stan also has a terrible memory, and given his hectic schedule on the college circuits, it's quite probable that his plan was simply forgotten given what was on his plate.
I think putting Kirby's name first is simply logical as it defers to him as being the elder of the two. Beyond this, going with an alphabetical order is always a wise decision when dealing with creative types and egos.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 2:59am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
All good intentions set aside. I think it is time for the over zealous Kirby fans to put down their torches and pitchforks. Since Kirby's heirs have settle their case with Marvel. They have the satisfaction they were looking to get.
To continue with this crusade against Stan Lee is a waste of time. Which is coming off as a personal grudge. I wondered how many of these people have even met Stan? Of those how many know him personally? How many were even around to witness any of the events in question ?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 4:16am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Wally, the cascade of events you allude to does seem absurd. Out of curiosity, give us a rough timeline for the major events of your speculation so we can understand when the confusing times took place and when Stan Lee feared his contribution would ever be in jeopardy. Please also identify roughly when fortunes were on the rise to correlate when the absent minded comic creator was motivated to plant his fake typed plot. Lastly, what do you suggest is changed to have Kirby's name listed before Lee's?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 5:33am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Bye bye, Wally!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7699
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 5:54am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Wally Coppage wrote: I think putting Kirby's name first is simply logical as it defers to him as being the elder of the two. Beyond this, going with an alphabetical order is always a wise decision when dealing with creative types and egos
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------In what universe do either of these apply to publishing?
The elder of the two? The elder?
This is like my four year old saying the youngest goes first in games being applied to the adult world.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 7:19am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Oh well, Bon voyage!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rick Whiting
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 10:31am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Stan wrote a full plot for Jack, for FF 1. It's been published several times. The X-Men began as Stan's idea.
So how would it be "right" to put KIrby's name first?
__________________
I've pointed this out a while ago on another forum and Kurt Busiek responded to my post by saying that it wasn't uncommon for publishers to write the full plot up years later in order to protect themselves from any potential future lawsuits of ownership of the characters. JB, have you ever heard of such a thing happening in the industry?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 10:52am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Perhaps someone with a better memory could answer this question.
In all the years that Stan Lee has been telling his side of the story. How consistent has his story been? I ask this question because I don't recall anyone saying that Stan has changed his story.
It seems reasonable to assume that if he were indeed lying about the events. He would have slipped up over the years. Especially now that he is older. Adding to that it being said that Stan can be forgetful. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2014 at 10:58am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I've pointed this out a while ago on another forum and Kurt Busiek responded to my post by saying that it wasn't uncommon for publishers to write the full plot up years later in order to protect themselves from any potential future lawsuits of ownership of the characters. JB, have you ever heard of such a thing happening in the industry?•• Nope. Nor have I heard of a publisher writing a plot and then hiding it in his desk on the assumption a another user of said desk would find it years later.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
