| Author |
|
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
|
| Posted: 10 November 2014 at 11:23am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The relative contributions of Lee and Kirby represent a debate that will probably never be settled. Each man has their partisans, ranging from the reasonable to the fanatic. For now, I think the important thing is that Kirby, like Lee, will be acknowledged in the books he helped create. That, I think, is a good thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4622
|
| Posted: 10 November 2014 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I agree that it just makes sense to credit it to Lee/Kirby and not try to tease out exactly who contributed what. The only reason I started responding in this thread was to question the notion that the existence of the plot synopsis proves it was all Stan (except for the visual design).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133326
|
| Posted: 10 November 2014 at 5:37pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I agree that it just makes sense to credit it to Lee/Kirby and not try to tease out exactly who contributed what. The only reason I started responding in this thread was to question the notion that the existence of the plot synopsis proves it was all Stan (except for the visual design).•• The existence of the written plot doesn't "prove it was all Stan." Jack made changes as he drew the story. (In the plot, Sue is permanently invisible, for instance.) What the plot proves, and what the Kirby Krusaders seem determined to deny, is that it was a collaboration. And one of the great ones. Neither was ever so good on his own.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12715
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 7:13am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
The existence of the written plot doesn't "prove it was all Stan." Jack made changes as he drew the story. (In the plot, Sue is permanently invisible, for instance.)
What the plot proves, and what the Kirby Krusaders seem determined to deny, is that it was a collaboration. And one of the great ones. Neither was ever so good on his own. ***
I could not agree more.
Has Stan Lee himself said that this plot proves it was all him? All -- really?! How could that be when he credits his collaborators so often and for so long?
Even a collaboration has a starting point, of course: perhaps Stan sees himself as that in many or even most cases? How wrong would that be?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133326
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 7:23am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Even a collaboration has a starting point, of course: perhaps Stan sees himself as that in many or even most cases? How wrong would that be?•• My joke about how I created Venom, which I have been telling for years, illustrates how the "creative" process is rarely quite so simple and clean as the uninformed might wish. And I do tend to agree with Stan, that the one who had the initial idea is the creator. The mythology of Stan as the Claimer of All Credit is very similar to that of me as the Towering Ego. Both are based a whole lot less on what Stan and I have actually said than on what others have said about us. I've noted before that back in the Seventies Stan got all kinds of flak when a foreign publication -- I think it was Italian -- reported him as the "creator" of Captain America. Stan, of course, moved quickly to correct this, but the Kirby Krusaders got out their pitchforks and torches, insisting he should never have "allowed" this to happen! Again, I come back to something I have said for years: when hearing an outrageous story about someone (anyone), the first question the listener should ask is the one made famous by Baron Munchausen: "Vas you dere, Charlie?" Like I've said, if all the Big Bad Byrne stories had to be from first person experience, the silence would be deafening. Same for Stan.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 10:02am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
This is only tangentially about Kirby but still very much worth reading:
"How becoming a follower of Ayn Rand will likely cost Steve Ditko around $50-100 million":
https://storify.com/miniver/how-becoming-a-follower-of-ayn-r and-will-likely-co
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15775
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 12:17pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
My joke about how I created Venom, which I have been telling for
years, illustrates how the "creative" process is rarely quite so simple
and clean as the uninformed might wish. And I do tend to agree with
Stan, that the one who had the initial idea is the creator.
++++++++
Fact of the matter is, people like soundbites. People like genius auteurs
instead of collaborators. People like simple, entertaining stories and
simple answers to questions.
On the "Marvel 75 Years: From Pulp to Pop" special which aired on
ABC, last week, the issue of how Stan created Spider-Man came up for
the zillionth time. And, for the zillionth time, Stan told the story about
seeing a fly on the wall, going through various names ("Insect-Man?
Nope! Mosquito-Man? Nah!") until he finally settled on "Spider-Man".
He's told this story again and again and again. When I saw him in
person at a convention, a few years back, a small child asked him how
he created Spider-Man, and he told exactly the same story.
The reality of Spider-Man's creation is much more complex of course,
and would take a lot more time and energy to properly explain. But,
people like easily-digestible soundbites, and so Stan has slowly worked
out a "routine" for when this question is asked of him. Again and again
and again.
It's no different that an actor going on a talk-show to promote their
latest film. They have a set of pre-chewed and pre-approved
anecdotes--some exaggerated, some simplified--which sound good for
public consumption.
Just look at the many interviews with actors and creators involved with
long-running properties like STAR TREK or STAR WARS, and you'll
hear the same people telling the same stories over and over again in
interview after interview. Some of the stories will grow in the telling,
such as Nichelle Nichols' tale of Dr. Martin Luther King convincing her
to stay with STAR TREK, a story which has become more elaborate
and grandiose, over the years.
There is a certain degree of showmanship--and boredom--that goes
along with interviews. After countless interviews that ask the same
question, I think the complexity of the truth has a tendency to get a bit
lost in favor of expediency, the need to avoid drama, or the passage of
time slowing causing the "soundbite" version of history to become
dominant in the interviewee's memory.
The vast majority of interviews and books feature the fluffy, promotional
answers to questions with complex answers. Occasionally, you'll come
across a making-of/tell-all book or DVD commentary that really allows an interviewee to
get very specific and messy with their answers, but these are certainly
not the norm.
Maybe this whole effect should be taken into account when people
accuse Stan of "stealing credit"!
Edited by Greg Kirkman on 11 November 2014 at 12:20pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133326
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 12:23pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The reality of Spider-Man's creation is much more complex of course, and would take a lot more time and energy to properly explain. But, people like easy-digestible soundbites, and so Stan has slowly worked out a "routine" for when this question is asked of him. Again and again and again.••• Many a moon ago, I was having dinner with friends, and someone asked me a comic related question. I answered. The questioner looked a me with eyes narrowed in amusement and said "You've been asked that before!" Apparently, without even realizing, I had slipped into "convention mode."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4622
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 1:43pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Michael Penn wrote:
| Has Stan Lee himself said that this plot proves it was all him? All -- really?! How could that be when he credits his collaborators so often and for so long? |
|
|
In recent years Stan has said that he came up with the synopsis entirely by himself (he says this in his deposition for the Kirby trial, for example). The synopsis contains the characters' names, powers, descriptions of their personalities, and the origin of the team... pretty much everything that is integral to the characters except for their appearance. In claiming exclusive credit for the synopsis, Stan is therefore claiming to have created everything except the design of the characters.
As I said upthread, I'm skeptical of this. I think it is likely that Kirby and Lee had discussions prior to the typing of the synopsis and that therefore Kirby had some creative input into what's in the synopsis. I agree that it was a collaboration, and that both guys likely had input into the conception of the characters' powers, personality, and origin.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15953
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 3:18pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The synopsis contains the characters' names, powers, descriptions of their personalities, and the origin of the team... pretty much everything that is integral to the characters except for their appearance.------------------------------------ First, I would say it contains a starting point for their powers and personalities, at times markedly different to the finished product. Take the Thing. The synposis says he is 'sort of shapeless' and 'he's not really a good guy'.... In other words, whoever took that and turned it into the character we know did a lot of the heavy lifting. Therefore, Stan's claim of exclusive credit of the synopsis does not equate to him claiming all credit, bar design. He's claiming exclusive credit of getting the ball rolling.
Second, your suggested version of events seems to be: Stan and Jack discussed the names, powers, personalities, then Stan typed it up (in direct contradiction of the first-hand testimony of Stan Lee, who has freely given credit where credit is due over the years) and then Jack decided to change things when he drew it? Why would he change the powers when he and Stan had already agreed on them?
The tone of the synposis, to my eyes, is suggestive of a starting point. It begs input from Jack, as if it has not already been given. The story 'might' begin with a meeting. 'Better talk to me about it, Jack'. 'Maybe we'll change this'.
Edited by Peter Martin on 11 November 2014 at 3:19pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4622
|
| Posted: 11 November 2014 at 4:09pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Peter Martin wrote:
| Second, your suggested version of events seems to be: Stan and Jack discussed the names, powers, personalities, then Stan typed it up (in direct contradiction of the first-hand testimony of Stan Lee, who has freely given credit where credit is due over the years) |
|
|
That's correct, that is what I am suggesting. It is Stan's first-hand testimony, but it directly contradicts Kirby's firsthand testimony. When we have a contradiction like this, to me it makes sense to not presume Stan's account is 100% accurate and that Kirby's is 100 % fabrication or misremembering. It seems more likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. Particularly since some of Stan's earlier comments (like what he said in Origins of Marvel Comics) suggest he did talk to Kirby before writing the synopsis. There's also the issue of the similarity of the origin to the first Challengers story. As I mentioned upthread, it seems very unlikely Stan came up with that plot point either by coincidence or deliberate copying of the Challengers story. This also supports the notion that Kirby had input into the plot synopsis.
Stan is not infallible, and his memory has been wrong in cases where he's mistakenly taken credit for something he didn't do. A few years ago he gave an interview where he discussed his thought process in plotting the dramatic machinery lifting scene in Spider-Man #33. This prompted Ditko to write a letter pointing out Stan had no input into the plotting of that story.
QUOTE:
| and then Jack decided to change things when he drew it? Why would he change the powers when he and Stan had already agreed on them? |
|
|
Why would Stan decide to change the Beast's speech pattern after X-Men #1? Why would Kirby gradually change the Thing's appearance over the years? Sometimes creators decide one thing, and then change it to something else they decide works better. It doesn't seem implausible to me that the two of them decided on Sue's powers in their initial discussion, and then Kirby changed them in drawing the story. Just as it appears the two of them initially discussed a rocket journey to Mars, and then Stan decided to change it to "the stars" when he typed up the synopsis. To me the synopsis has the tone of a continuation of a discussion.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 11 November 2014 at 4:10pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
