|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2023 15:21:18 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. And yet, all did not get the creative credit for that from Marvel, except Lee. And Lee was the front man who made sure that did not happen. I understand why people love Stan, I grew up loving the man, but the truth is he lied to aggrandize himself to the harm harm his coworkers. His convient "bad memory" was a useful tool for his PR bullshit. Funky Flashman indeed.
And Jester makes a good point, Buscema cared about the work he did drawing the comics, but not the comics themselves. He also loved that he could work at home and be with his family.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 21, 2023 15:44:56 GMT -5
I don't sen a downturn from Kirby's 1960s work to the best of his 1970s solo stuff: in some ways, I'd rate the New Gods and the Eternals higher than the FF and Thor but it would be more accurate to say they were just trying to do something very different to what Kirby and Lee had done together with those earlier works.
OTOH, I do see a significant downturn from Lee's work with Kirby and Ditko to his creative productions with artists like Colan or Buscema, who were great artists but NOT known for creating characters or writing stories.
Romita is in a bit of a grey zone, in that he wasn't known as a writer or creator of charaxters in the same way Ditko or Kirby were, but he seems to have had more talent and contributed more in those areas than relatively straight artists like Buscema, which is probably why there's such a noticeable difference between, say, Spider-Man and Daredevil. I like DD as a character probably more than I do Spider-Man, and Colan is one of my favourite artists, but as a whole there's no doubt that S-M was the superior series of the two, and my guess is that might have been because of Romita's contributions beyond his artwork.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 21, 2023 17:40:21 GMT -5
I totally agree about Daredevil, but let's not forget that not all of the books Lee and Kirby worked on together were great. They may have introduced characters who became fixtures in the Marvel universe, but Jack did his best work on Thor and the Fantastic Four presumably because of his love of mythology and science fiction. Personally, I feel as though Lee was in sync with the Spider-Man character, whereas Daredevil was fleshed out by later writers. I don't find it surprising that Spider-Man continued to be a success after Ditko left, as Spidey was Marvel's flagship character and you can practically feel Lee's PR juices pumping through it. He made a smart decision in begging Romita to pencil it, not only because of the strength of Romita's artwork and character designs, but because Romita was a company guy and wasn't going to push back on any changes Lee wanted to make to the title.
I'm sure the Fantastic Four as scripted by Jack Kirby would have been grandiose, but I'm not sure it would have had that same hype that Lee provided. You can call it editing if you like, but it's something Lee contributed to the books and the reason that many of us prefer to view the books as collaborations even if Kirby was doing the heavy-lifting. People often overlook the positives of the Marvel method, as well. Jack may have been frustrated that he was doing all of the work and getting barely any credit, but the Marvel method gave him the freedom to write the stories he wanted to, explore the themes he was interested in, and continue to develop his art style with marginal editorial interference (it's unrealistic to believe there would be no changes to a creators' published work even if some of his fans consider it sacrilege.) Would there have been a New Gods or Fourth World if Kirby hadn't experienced the freedom he enjoyed at Marvel? Since DC didn't really work out for Jack, I wonder how things would have turned out if Stan had let Jack produce his own books at Marvel. Would New Gods have lasted longer at Marvel or gone the way of the Eternals? I like Jack's odds better at Marvel than DC, however there would have still been the problems with professional jealousy and what not.
In a way, I don't really blame Lee for promoting himself and his own self-interests. It's not something I would be comfortable doing, but I can understand the mentality. There's an argument to be made that Jack was too nice and could have fought for his own interests a bit harder, but he seemed driven by providing for his family. Possibly a Depression-driven mentality. The fact that Jack died well before Marvel became a pop culture phenomenon hurts his legacy, but that can't be helped.
Another thing I find interesting is that Neal Adams remained friendly with Lee despite the pair being on opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to creator rights and unionizing the comic book industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 21, 2023 18:48:07 GMT -5
A few things in response commond, Lee wasn't "promoting himself" he was knowingly lying about who created the characters. taking credit for something you didn't do should not be sloughed off so easily because we love Stan's personality.
Second. Kirby always had a hand in writing his own stories, it wasn't like he wanted to do something new at Marvel. From Captain America, to the Newsboy Legion, to Boys Ranch, to the Romance books, to the War books to Green Arrow and Challengers at DC to the Monster stories at Marvel, Kirby was the writer alone or with someone like Joe Simon. He didn't all of a sudden get that "freedom" because Stan wanted him to do all the plotting. I don't think he was too nice, I think he was turning out a massive amount of work a month and knew the constraints to work for someone like Goodman, he spent six or seven long days a week at the drawing board and didn't have the megaphone Marvel provided Lee with in every book. He tried and tried to get his due, until he felt he had to leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 21, 2023 19:31:08 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. I've professed my deep love of The Demon and OMAC before and to an extent, I agree. I think at some points I was more in love with the concepts that Kirby presented rather than the actual story (and geeze, is the dialogue in OMAC stiff at times) * you also needed Vince Colletta, he was integral*  IDK, once I learned about how lazy Colletta was at times, my opinion of him hasn't been the same since. I was reading an issue he inked in my Flash "The Death Of Iris West" collected edition and was probably more engrossed with the idea of how much Colletta intentionally left out than the story itself and it was a pretty good story to begin with |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 21, 2023 20:10:46 GMT -5
A few things in response commond, Lee wasn't "promoting himself" he was knowingly lying about who created the characters. taking credit for something you didn't do should not be sloughed off so easily because we love Stan's personality. Second. Kirby always had a hand in writing his own stories, it wasn't like he wanted to do something new at Marvel. From Captain America, to the Newsboy Legion, to Boys Ranch, to the Romance books, to the War books to Green Arrow and Challengers at DC to the Monster stories at Marvel, Kirby was the writer alone or with someone like Joe Simon. He didn't all of a sudden get that "freedom" because Stan wanted him to do all the plotting. I don't think he was too nice, I think he was turning out a massive amount of work a month and knew the constraints to work for someone like Goodman, he spent six or seven long days a week at the drawing board and didn't have the megaphone Marvel provided Lee with in every book. He tried and tried to get his due, until he felt he had to leave. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just that I can understand the mentality, especially from a guy who went bankrupt a couple of times. I have no doubts that Simon and Kirby worked that way, but Kirby did write from script at times. National used to send him scripts. He claims he never used them, but Jack claimed a lot of things, like never having story conferences with Stan or seeing Stan write any sort of synopsis or script, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the Marvel Method didn't provide Jack with any sort of freedom, but he sure as heck took a giant leap as an artist and creator during his time there. Perhaps that had more to do with age and wisdom than his working environment I do think he could have stood up for himself against guys like Carmine when Carmine was canceling books at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 21, 2023 20:47:40 GMT -5
I have no doubts that Simon and Kirby worked that way, but Kirby did write from script at times. National used to send him scripts. He claims he never used them, but Jack claimed a lot of things, like never having story conferences with Stan or seeing Stan write any sort of synopsis or script, despite evidence to the contrary. Well, as much as Lee is accused of self-aggrandizing behavior, Kirby was not above that himself, especially when he claimed Lee did not write any sort of script or synopsis. Obviously, that is patently false, and as I always say, its about the process of elimination: you know what Kirby's work was like with Lee, but if we are to believe Lee was never seen writing a synopsis or script, then all of his post-Marvel creations should have been on the same level, with the same creative punch that resonated with readers, because it was all Kirby, the same as his Marvel years. That did not happen, so one has to conclude that his work with Marvel did include a more than surface-y partnership with Lee. Infantino had a company to run, so that was going to be the priority over just about any decision to keep or cancel titles, not creator grievances. Adding to that, from what i've heard, Infantino was no pushover, and with his own historic legacy at DC (being one of the people who launched the Silver Age, rescued Batman, shepherding innovative talent, was heavily involved in DC's licensing, etc.), he was a giant who felt he knew what was best--or at least would try what might work. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 21, 2023 20:53:02 GMT -5
From a recent book review, I gather that Stan and his family had a tendency to live beyond their means, even though those means were quite substantial by most standards - e.g. sending his daughter to expensive schools, buying houses and choosing neighbourhoods out of his league, throwing lavish parties with a guest list from an even higher income bracket than his own, etc - so that even when his income was at its peak he was often desperate for more funds.
I have no idea idea how accurate these claims might or might not be but if true it could explain why his some of his behaviour comes across as so grasping. Not that it would excuse it but it might make it a little easier to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 21, 2023 21:17:08 GMT -5
From a recent book review, I gather that Stan and his family had a tendency to live beyond their means, even though those means were quite substantial by most standards - e.g. sending his daughter to expensive schools, buying houses and choosing neighbourhoods out of his league, throwing lavish parties with a guest list from an even higher income bracket than his own, etc - so that even when his income was at its peak he was often desperate for more funds. I have no idea idea how accurate these claims might or might not be but if true it could explain why his some of his behaviour comes across as so grasping. Not that it would excuse it but it might make it a little easier to understand. I've heard mummerings that Stan's daughter was kind of spoiled and often wanted the moon, leading to Stan to make numerous appearances late in life to fund whatever she wanted
Again, these are just unsubstantiated rumors
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 21, 2023 22:06:32 GMT -5
Wasn’t Stan surrounded by some pretty dubious people in his final years? Particularly after his wife died.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,210 
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 22, 2023 4:19:24 GMT -5
Wasn’t Stan surrounded by some pretty dubious people in his final years? Particularly after his wife died. Yeah, there were concerns raised online by people close to him that he was being exploited and used by a number of unscrupulous folks, including memorabilia dealer Keya Morgan, who was also Lee's business manager at the time. The allegations were that Morgan had been deliberately blocking contact between Lee from his friends and family following Lee's wife's death in order to gain access to Lee's money. If memory serves, I think Morgan was actually prosecuted for abusing Lee eventually. There were also some unsavoury sexual harassment allegations made against Lee in the final years of his life by some of the nurses who cared for him at his home. I've no idea how much truth there is to those allegations though. I don't think it ever went to court. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 22, 2023 7:58:42 GMT -5
Stan Lee did not file for bankruptcy, two of the companies he started, with investor money, did, and that was in the last decades, not the 70s when he was taking credit for creating everything. Mark Evaner has a good post today, referring to the Fobes article on the documentary. www.newsfromme.com/2023/06/20/more-on-stan-n-jack/ |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 22, 2023 8:45:43 GMT -5
Jack and Stan had a complicated relationship. They were able to have a congenial relationship in public and then take swipes at each other in print. Even in the summer of '89 when Jack did his famous interview with Gary Groth, there's a picture of the pair posing together at the San Diego Comic Con. People have suggested over the years that Groth goaded Jack into bad mouthing Lee in the interview, but others have stated that Kirby's wife was the instigator of it as apparently she hated Stan. Even Joe Simon raised his eyebrow at some of the comments Jack made in that interview. Stan did attend Jack's funeral, and it seems he had a genuine fondness for him.
Here is an interesting radio show clip I stumbled upon where Stan calls into a show that is celebrating Jack's 70th birthday (naturally). Stan is highly complimentary of Jack, and Jack is polite, but they get into it a bit over who did what. It's kind of interesting in that Jack claims he wrote dialogue above the panels and Stan said it never made it into the stories and that he scripted every word, and that Jack never read the comics after they were published so he wouldn't have known. Jack comes across as thoughtful, but Lee is clearly the more articulate of the two. According to Joe Simon, Jack didn't like writers, and Jack does mention on the radio show that an artist should be allowed to do the entire book by himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 22, 2023 12:17:39 GMT -5
Jack and Stan had a complicated relationship. They were able to have a congenial relationship in public and then take swipes at each other in print. Even in the summer of '89 when Jack did his famous interview with Gary Groth, there's a picture of the pair posing together at the San Diego Comic Con. People have suggested over the years that Groth goaded Jack into bad mouthing Lee in the interview, but others have stated that Kirby's wife was the instigator of it as apparently she hated Stan. Even Joe Simon raised his eyebrow at some of the comments Jack made in that interview. Stan did attend Jack's funeral, and it seems he had a genuine fondness for him. Here is an interesting radio show clip I stumbled upon where Stan calls into a show that is celebrating Jack's 70th birthday (naturally). Stan is highly complimentary of Jack, and Jack is polite, but they get into it a bit over who did what. It's kind of interesting in that Jack claims he wrote dialogue above the panels and Stan said it never made it into the stories and that he scripted every word, and that Jack never read the comics after they were published so he wouldn't have known. Jack comes across as thoughtful, but Lee is clearly the more articulate of the two. According to Joe Simon, Jack didn't like writers, and Jack does mention on the radio show that an artist should be allowed to do the entire book by himself. I had the issue of TCJ, with that interview and read it several times. Groth is goading Jack, but, Roz also chimes in. Roz was known to be a lion, protecting Jack and his work; so it is a bit from Column A and a bit from Column B. Groth, however, is definitely an Agent Provocateur and would subsequently publish an entire issue devoted to Stan bashing, beyond reasonable criticisms. By similar token, he published an attack on the character of Carol Kalish, Marvel's Direct Sales boss, who had just recently passed away, after several obituaries praised her. Their defense was that the praises were out of proportion with her actions, for Marvel; but, the attack was pretty reprehensible and highly questionable. Peter David wasn't having it and went after them, in their own magazine, which was never going to go well; but, David had a Quixotic mentality when it came to stuff like that (see his "debate" with Todd McFarlane). Their editorial was tasteless and it got criticied rightfully as such; but, David was just feeding them the attention they craved. Funny enough, everyone expected Groth's interview with Todd McFarlane to be antagonistic and McFarlane copped to all of the criticisms of his work, explained his viewpoint and actually came across pretty well and they had a pretty good talk, though I think McFarlane fits in with Groth's anti-DC & Marvel agenda, even as he epitomized his attacks on their products. Groth could have it both ways, praising Todd for being a rebel who flipped the bird to Marvel and started his own company, and criticize it as low brow junk, with Todd happily agreeing, while he fanned himself with money (metaphorically, obviously, though you never know....) |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 22, 2023 12:44:31 GMT -5
I take anything connected to Groth with a factory of salt. He was an unscrupulous lowlife, IMO.
|
|
