Would Stan Still be the Man without Jack (King) Kirby?
- Thread starter NextGen123
- Start date
Cue the music, first the ahn woon, then the lirpa.
What of it? The point here is that he's continuing to benefit not simply from his earlier work but from his collaborations with some brilliant people who were under-rewarded if not under-recognized.
If anyone wants to look at the documentation of Kirby's struggles with Marvel go to Tomorrows.com and check out the Jack Kirby collector magazine. What many do not know was that Kirby had only a freelancer status and Marvel never offered him any medical benefits. He had to fight the company just to get his original art back, however much of it was stolen by the time the inventory started. Out of 10,000 pages of art, he only recieved 88. That was back in the 1980's.
The Comics Journal also documented Kirby's fight with the company. Ironically it was when he left Marvel in the 1980's to work for Ruby-Spears animation did he get much better pay for much less of a workload. It was one of the first times in his life where the company actually had health insurance that he didn't have to buy on his own.
Captain America, the new film just released, was actually a character created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. Stan Lee had nothing to do with the creation of that character. I haven't seen the film yet; and I have to wonder if that is stated in the credits? I have to also wonder if Simon and Kirby's names are in bold type on the movie poster.
There was a controversey over the 1990 movie version of Captain America. Stan Lee's name was on the movie poster credited as his creator. It wasn't until the family brought it to the producers attnetion that the poster had to be changed to omit Lee's name. No one in the publicity department bothered to check the facts. It was presumed that Stan Lee created all the characters.
The Comics Journal also documented Kirby's fight with the company. Ironically it was when he left Marvel in the 1980's to work for Ruby-Spears animation did he get much better pay for much less of a workload. It was one of the first times in his life where the company actually had health insurance that he didn't have to buy on his own.
Captain America, the new film just released, was actually a character created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. Stan Lee had nothing to do with the creation of that character. I haven't seen the film yet; and I have to wonder if that is stated in the credits? I have to also wonder if Simon and Kirby's names are in bold type on the movie poster.
There was a controversey over the 1990 movie version of Captain America. Stan Lee's name was on the movie poster credited as his creator. It wasn't until the family brought it to the producers attnetion that the poster had to be changed to omit Lee's name. No one in the publicity department bothered to check the facts. It was presumed that Stan Lee created all the characters.
Last edited:
joe and jack are credited. they also get a "special thanks" credit along with Stan, Mark Millar, Bryan Hitch, Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting (i think)
So? My dad had his own small business his entire life and had to pay for his own health insurance. That's true of most small business owners (and, in essence, that is what a freelance artist is: a self-employed individual running his own studio).
Furthermore, its very likely that Kirby could have gone on staff at either DC or Marvel if he wanted. Instead, Kirby had no problem being a freelancer and taking his work to other companies if Timely/Atlas/Marvel wasn't paying him enough or if the company was in financial trouble. Look at his work for DC, Harvey, Fawcett, Archie, etc., over the years. Kirby was never shy about selling his work to the highest bidder and trying to negotiate the best terms he could. So why should he-or his family-be able to claim Marvel treated him unfairly after the fact?
Yeah, Kirby created a lot of popular stuff for Marvel that made a lot of money but he also created stuff that didn't sell that well. And he got paid regardless of whether the book sold like "Fantastic Four" or like "the Chamber of Darkness."
In other words, Marvel, not Kirby was the one taking the biggest financial risk over the years.
The more I read about Kirby it seems the more he comes off as a "perpetual victim," claiming that everyone ripped him off: Jack Schiff, Stan Lee, Carmine Infantino, etc. Every five or so years he'd decide whichever company he worked for was ripping him off, so he'd quit in a huff and go over to the other company.
Well, it's certainly true that in Rand's Atlas Shrugged - if you go in for that kind of thing 
- it's the Kirbys of the world who walk away, not corporate middle managers and editors at places like Marvel. 
- it's the Kirbys of the world who walk away, not corporate middle managers and editors at places like Marvel. No Stan Lee would only be remembered as a talentless hack if he didnt have Kirby or Ditko for that matter.
Blasphemy!
And I don't get the "worship" for Lee's "writing skills;" we're talking about a man who'd be struck silent if forbidden to use alliteration.
Lee was an innovator. It isn't so much that he is still good by today's standards, it is that he advanced the medium in ways that were unheard of at the time.
In a way it's like Elvis, Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly. Their stuff seems dated and even cliched now (and, in the case of Berry and Presley, neither were able to sustain their early innovative work), but it was fresh at the time and suffers to some extent because it's been ripped off so much that it became tired.
In a way it's like Elvis, Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly. Their stuff seems dated and even cliched now (and, in the case of Berry and Presley, neither were able to sustain their early innovative work), but it was fresh at the time and suffers to some extent because it's been ripped off so much that it became tired.
I feel like this is more a product of Kirby's successors than anything else-- Mark Evanier and such. Kirby himself was just a capitalist! This is the man who left Timely for DC, but wrote for DC under a pen name up until he got found out so he could make twice the money.
I was reading the Kirby/Simon Sandman collection a couple months back, and it's hugely obvious when Kirby stops actually drawing the strip and an uncredited assistant takes over. Basically all style and panache completely disappear.
To me, the biggest disappointment re: Kirby's art is when DC let Vince Colletta, Murphy Anderson and Al Plastino redraw almost all the Superman figures in Jimmy Olsen. Why in god's name would you hire Kirby and then change his artwork to look like something else? That's a little like getting Jimi Hendrix to play guitar on your album and demanding he sound like, I dunno, Glen Campbell.
Did anyone check out the Comics Journal site that chronicles the struggles Kirby had with Marvel? It has some interesting commentary and updates. I purchased the magazine during the 90's when the controversy came up about the 1990 version of Captain America. There was "from Stan Lee" on the poster, when in fact, Lee had nothing to do with it's creation. The producers never bothered to check the fact that Captain America was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. How this was overlooked by the producers, I don't know. The 90 version of Captain America wasn't the best effort I've seen. There were name character actors like Robocop's Ronny Cox as the Captain's friend. I don't know who made the final edit but the movie dragged on and Cap wasn't in costume untll over an hour into the film. I am sure it's on U Tube. It's one of the most boring films I've ever seen.
Last edited:
It just got a director's cut blu-ray release this month because of the movie.
Lee / Kirby was THE creative zeitgeist of the sixties.
Yeah, you heard me!
Honourable mentions to the Beatles, Sydney Newman and Lee/Ditko.
I voted "No" to the poll question.
Yeah, you heard me!
Honourable mentions to the Beatles, Sydney Newman and Lee/Ditko.
I voted "No" to the poll question.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Similar threads
