|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 20, 2023 21:44:08 GMT -5
My problem with Kirby's 70s work is that he has all these amazing ideas and incredible new characters, and he starts off with a hiss and a roar only to run out of steam on every book. Kirby's biggest supporters seemingly want to paint him as the victim -- it wasn't Jack's fault, it was Carmine, it was editorial, etc. However, Kamandi ran for a fairly long time and ran out of steam fairly quickly. The premise of Kamandi was far too derivative of the sci-fi zeitgeist of the era, but nowhere near as thought-provoking. It ran out of steam just as that aforementioned era wound down in favor of far different sci-fi visions, particularly in film, but unlike concepts such as 2001 or the Planet of the Apes series, Kamandi--as far as I observed over the decades--did not enjoy new generations actively discovering it. New Gods was fine, but so much of his 70s DC output proved he was no one-man creative force. He needed a strong co-author to shape (and edit) a number of his ideas, but that did not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 20, 2023 21:50:02 GMT -5
Kirby's idea was not to do all the books himself, but after he got them going he would turn them over to others and be the editor. DC didn't let him do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 20, 2023 22:04:15 GMT -5
My impression has always been that he was more heavily involved in the early years, and that he left more of the work to the artist as business grew. I find it hard to believe that he had little-to-no involvement in the origin stories. The artists may have plotted the stories, but I can't imagine Lee having zero input. It's hard for me to imagine the Stan Lee that we knew having nothing to say about anything. We'll never know who came up with what, or whether Stan actually wrote a synopsis for Fantastic Four #1. Perhaps Jack went off and plotted the entire thing by himself and Lee just added the dialogue and captions. I don't think it makes much difference. In the end, they were the co-creators. Jack was the plotter/co-plotter slash artist, Stan was the writer/scripter. Could Lee have invented the Fantastic Four without Jack? I doubt it. Would it have been as good without Lee scripting it? I doubt it. Challengers of the Unknown wasn't as good as prime Fantastic Four. I totally agree with your conclusion; Stan brought something to the work that made it special in a way that Kirby's previous work with other scripters, even if Kirby had plotted them, did not exhibit. But your first point is one that has really been haunting me since I stepped into this minefield. We know that in at least some of Kirby's, Ditko's, Heck's, and Ayers' stories, according to Stan's own statements, and artists like Romita's (according to Romita's account), the plots originated primarily if not entirely with the artists. And yet we are hesitant to accept the possibility that those first installments may have also originated with the artists, and I think that's largely because Stan had stories--memorable, often-told stories--that we've heard and taken to heart. We're primed to say "Yeah, but surely Stan had the big idea in the first place, even if he didn't have the big idea in issue 3 or issue 13 or issue 26 or issue 63", because that's the version we grew up with, and it's dear to us. Where does the assumption that "he left more of the work to the artist as business grew" really come from? Stan did imply that, but there's evidence that Stan was practicing the "Marvel method" of scripting from the penciled pages long before the primacy of Marvel in the Silver Age. It's essentially comic book heresy to suggest it, and mind you, I'm not saying that it's so; I'm not enough of a historian/detective to come to a conclusion that I can have confidence in. But what I do see is that when you do allow yourself to examine some of these stories under the premise "What if Stan didn't come up with this plot?" you can discover lots of things that you overlook when you assume "Stan knew the basics of this story long before he sat down to script it." For instance, we had a discussion about Daredevil #1 here a while back, and when I revisited that with this perspective, I saw evidence that Everett's story was saying things that Stan's script contradicted. Did Everett defy Stan's plot and Stan had to fix it, or did Stan look at Everett's plot and decided to change things? Either way, it doesn't change the appropriateness of calling both men co-creators, but it may suggest that we are wrong to assume that Stan came up with the overall premise and Everett just broke down the story into panels. But like I said, this is a minefield. This is heresy. And it's against my better judgment that I spoke up on this, because I've seen the divisiveness it generates. But I'm a puzzle-lover, and I can't resist trying to deduce the secrets that can be unlocked from careful study of the work and the historical record. Things like the original format of the contents of FF#1, the mystery of Western Team-Up, the original name of Brother Power the Geek, and why Dr. Fate took to a half-helmet... |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jun 20, 2023 22:12:50 GMT -5
According to Mark Evaner, who was there and should know, The New Gods were menat to be a limited series and DC told Jack to make it an ongoing after he started. So yeah, it started to limp when they made him change what he intended to do. Disagree about Kamandi, read issue #16. Great writing.
Is there a source for Evanier’s statement there? Because I find it very hard to believe that New Gods was meant to be a limited series since DC didn’t publish their first intentional mini-series until almost a decade later. It's my understanding that it was a "limited series" in the sense that Kirby intended to lead the story to a conclusion, at some point down the road, and then end it, rather than design it to be a never-ending sequence of adventures. Not that he planned to end it after a specific number of issues, but that he would generate stories that led to the climax he had in mind, and then write "The End". A radical notion for comics, which were almost entirely intended to be perpetual engines should they catch on with the readers. Kirby wanted to see these collected in big volumes, and in his mind, that kind of format deserved an ending like the novel he saw the Fourth World saga as being, not an ongoing tease that maintained the status quo. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 21, 2023 0:02:57 GMT -5
Is there a source for Evanier’s statement there? Because I find it very hard to believe that New Gods was meant to be a limited series since DC didn’t publish their first intentional mini-series until almost a decade later. It's my understanding that it was a "limited series" in the sense that Kirby intended to lead the story to a conclusion, at some point down the road, and then end it, rather than design it to be a never-ending sequence of adventures. Not that he planned to end it after a specific number of issues, but that he would generate stories that led to the climax he had in mind, and then write "The End". A radical notion for comics, which were almost entirely intended to be perpetual engines should they catch on with the readers. Kirby wanted to see these collected in big volumes, and in his mind, that kind of format deserved an ending like the novel he saw the Fourth World saga as being, not an ongoing tease that maintained the status quo.
I definitely think he meant it to have a beginning, middle, and en - IOW to make a complete story in itself.
I also think it's clear that at some earlier point he had envisaged handing off his DC creations to other artists and writers. But it seems clear to me that his intentions changed once he got going on the three Fourth World series. I think it became personal to him and he would not have wanted to give any of those three books away to another writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 21, 2023 7:17:10 GMT -5
I can understand the bone of contention the freelance artists had with the Marvel Method since they weren't getting paid the writer's fee for their work. You can see how that would piss somebody off if they felt someone was taking the writing fee for themselves by messing with their work. Kirby, Ditko and Wood probably felt they could script their own work, or at least deserved part, or all, of the writer fee. I can sympathize with their frustration. We can argue til the cows come home whether Lee's dialogue made Kirby's plots better, or vice versa, but at its heart is the same creators rights battle that raged on long afterward, and is still continuing today. Remember, Lee himself ended up suing Marvel himself.
I wonder what was more acrimonious, the Beatles break up or the Stan vs. Ditko and Kirby drama? I also wonder why the Bullpen wasn't more fractured. If Lee was really as bad as Kirby, Ditko, Wood, and others made out, then why were there so many lifers? Why didn't Romita, Severin, Colan, Thomas, or Buscema have a huge falling out with Stan?
And let's not forget that Kirby and Ditko went back to Marvel. If i were either man, there's no way I would have gone back.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 21, 2023 8:20:46 GMT -5
I wonder what was more acrimonious, the Beatles break up or the Stan vs. Ditko and Kirby drama? The Beatles. No contest. Lennon would not shut up bitching about McCartney to anyone who would listen for about four years, even when he would occasionally see McCartney in the early solo years. Perhaps those with fewer gripes were more professional? Perhaps they were satisfied with their known and not-so known participation? One has to wonder about that. Its not as though Lee--and all of the editors he influenced--had vanished from Marvel, so... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 8:33:53 GMT -5
I wonder what was more acrimonious, the Beatles break up or the Stan vs. Ditko and Kirby drama? Vince McMahon and Bret Hart in November 1997…  |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2023 9:04:18 GMT -5
A few things. Romita. Buy his own words, didn't have a problem with plotting without credit. The other artists me tio ed did the book of their work with other writers,who actually wrote out plots, and whe. Stan was no longer involved in the day to day. Both Buscema and Colan have had their Stan stories. Kirby was brought back to Marvel under his terms as his own editor with a completely different management. Ditko , I don't know about except he said who he would work with and not draw Spider-Man or Strange. And it wasn't just the nonwriting credit, other men were promised royalties from Goodman that never came. When Goodman sold to Perfect Chemical, they offered a worse deal to Kirby than he had under Goodman, He left. As for heresy, there have been very well sourced books in recent years that have more than ample evidence that Stan did not originate most of the ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 21, 2023 9:53:53 GMT -5
I can understand the bone of contention the freelance artists had with the Marvel Method since they weren't getting paid the writer's fee for their work. You can see how that would piss somebody off if they felt someone was taking the writing fee for themselves by messing with their work. Kirby, Ditko and Wood probably felt they could script their own work, or at least deserved part, or all, of the writer fee. I can sympathize with their frustration. We can argue til the cows come home whether Lee's dialogue made Kirby's plots better, or vice versa, but at its heart is the same creators rights battle that raged on long afterward, and is still continuing today. Remember, Lee himself ended up suing Marvel himself. I wonder what was more acrimonious, the Beatles break up or the Stan vs. Ditko and Kirby drama? I also wonder why the Bullpen wasn't more fractured. If Lee was really as bad as Kirby, Ditko, Wood, and others made out, then why were there so many lifers? Why didn't Romita, Severin, Colan, Thomas, or Buscema have a huge falling out with Stan? And let's not forget that Kirby and Ditko went back to Marvel. If i were either man, there's no way I would have gone back. Kirby & Ditko did more heavy lifting than the rest, which would lend weight to their grievances, real or imagined. Both came back because there really was no alternative that could pay them enough to support themselves or a family, without being able to hustle and produce, like in their younger days. Ditko stuck around longer; but, Kirby left again relatively quickly, moving into animation, where he was paid better and felt more respected. As for others, why do a few writers, like Larry Hama defend Shooter, when the bulk of the top tier Marvel writers slam his regime? Different personalities deal with people in different ways. Some may naturally clash, some grow to clash, some co-exist without ever truly liking one another, some just avoid conflict. Roy idolized Stan and also inherited his mantle. Romita and Severin had steady work beyond drawing monthly series, doing production work and other behind-the-scenes stuff. Others were artists, dependent on page rate to earn a living. They were the least likely to rock the boat, in an antagonistic scenario. In an analogy that driver1980 will enjoy, I liken it to wrestling shoot interviews. There are stars who have voiced issues about specific bookers or promoters, or other top wrestlers. Then, there are those who said it was my job to do what I was told. Some guys were not happy with how Vince McMahon used them or didn't and others were content to have a long, steady job, doing what they were told and keeping their head down. Kirby & Ditko are in the former, maybe the others fall more into the latter category. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 21, 2023 11:26:22 GMT -5
Without the " Marvel Method" I think Marvel comics would have gone away. It wasn't possible for Lee to write every book month after month. I give him credit for shaping the universe and uniting it as a cohesive place that fans loved. I don't think Romita created stories from nothing and just brought it in for Lee to figure out and dialogue. It doesn't make sense to believe that Romita was suddenly a writer. Lee was a salesman and he acted like one to push the Marvel brand. Subtract Lee after 1964 and Ditko, Kirby et al would not be able to sustain Marvel. They needed a guiding hand with a vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 21, 2023 13:38:38 GMT -5
Without the " Marvel Method" I think Marvel comics would have gone away. A point some forget or gloss over when strapping Lee to the burning stake. Neither Kirby or Ditko were so creative that they could do it all on their own, or held all of the key developmental assets of each comic in their hands; in the case of Spider-Man, frankly, Ditko was devoid of producing kind of the earthy heart and believable characterization Lee brought to the title, which flourished to new heights after Ditko's departure. As I've mentioned before, look at the work of post-Marvel Ditko and Kirby and ask yourself if it was all on the level of their Marvel output, and if not, what--if anyone dare guess--might be the reason for any downturn? Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2023 13:43:32 GMT -5
That is true Icct. I give Lee credit for that. He made Marvel cool books and kept a good editorial hand over everything. The problem is, especially when he gave up the work at Marvel in the 70s, all that PR energy went to creating the Myth that he created everything, that all ideas started with him. This was contrary to things he had said a decade before. He lied and then kept saying his memory wasn't great, but kept telling the same lies. In the 60s he admitted that Ditko created Dr. Strange on his own, that he brought the character fully formed to Lee, and did almost all the stories himself, with Stan's dialog. Here is a book published in the 70s with all those Ditko stories. If this was a one time incident, well, but it wasn't, it was Marvel, and Lee erasing the artist who actually created these characters.  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 21, 2023 14:28:24 GMT -5
Lee let the salesman part of his personality take over to say things he should not have said. You needed every person that was present in the first 3 years at Marvel to be there to create what we enjoy today. If you subtract anyone, you might not have the top comic company in the history of the medium. * you also needed Vince Colletta, he was integral*  |
|
|
|
Post by jester on Jun 21, 2023 14:40:02 GMT -5
I wonder what was more acrimonious, the Beatles break up or the Stan vs. Ditko and Kirby drama? I also wonder why the Bullpen wasn't more fractured. If Lee was really as bad as Kirby, Ditko, Wood, and others made out, then why were there so many lifers? Why didn't Romita, Severin, Colan, Thomas, or Buscema have a huge falling out with Stan? The guys who seemed the most frustrated with things were the guys who seemed the most passionate about comics and who had their own stories they wanted to tell (Kirby, Ditko, Wood). Comparatively, guys like Colan and Buscema didn't see themselves as creators. Not that they were hacks, or that they didn't give their very best, but to them comics were just a job that gave them an outlet to do what they loved (drawing). By contrast, the Kirby, Ditko, Wood types were guys in comics because they loved comics and wanted to tell their own stories in comics form. There's also something to be said about the fact that Kirby and Ditko were involved in creating the most popular characters that they didn't see money from. Those other artists created characters, but not to the same degree as those two. And it's worth remembering that the lack of credit for the plotting they were doing wasn't their only grievance. Being unable to fiancially share in the money that their characters were generating was a big one. You do bring up a valid point though. It's often framed as "all the artists hated Stan" and that clearly wasn't the case. Colan repeatedly said in interviews that working with Stan was the happiest period of his career in comics. |
|
