Pat T
Full Member
Posts: 103 
|
Post by Pat T on Mar 3, 2016 21:35:06 GMT -5
And just in case this isn't blatantly obvious.. The reason Ditko/Kirby et. al didn't challenge Stan's (highly questionable*) version of events in interviews and books like <i>Origins of Marvel Comics</i> is that they felt it might brand them as troublemakers and endanger their livelihood. Stan, of course, was working from a much greater position of power. His editorial position (gained from nepotistic family connections, at that!) wasn't in any danger, so he could spout off whatever he felt like at the moment, and his job was secure. The old time freelancers had watched the industry boom and bust cycles and might not have recognized their own value. * Highly questionable, but at least AFTER the book in the original post was created, Stan's reputation for ignoring and downplaying his artists does seem somewhat exaggerated. He might not have granted Kirby and Ditko's creative primacy on the Fantastic Four and Doctor Strange etc. (which has been basically proven as a stone cold fact) but he rarely (never?) left them out of the creative equation totally. In the aforementioned Origins of Marvel Comics (ferinstance) he does say that he talked the FF concept over with Kirby.... but doesn't mention how much of it was "borrowed" from Challengers of the Unknown. Surely back then the work culture was the same as now, in that once a person got out on their own, they quickly realized that everybody is looking out for themselves, especially the ones who had a family to support. It's not a game with rules anymore; it's survival for the present while trying to prove your worth as a continued employee. Kirby was supposed to be the best, and probably could have worked out special terms for himself even back then, but he just wilted instead. It's a personality type, I know, but extremely timid people can put themselves out there if it's important enough to them. If they don't, they get flattened. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 3, 2016 21:40:46 GMT -5
And just in case this isn't blatantly obvious.. The reason Ditko/Kirby et. al didn't challenge Stan's (highly questionable*) version of events in interviews and books like <i>Origins of Marvel Comics</i> is that they felt it might brand them as troublemakers and endanger their livelihood. Stan, of course, was working from a much greater position of power. His editorial position (gained from nepotistic family connections, at that!) wasn't in any danger, so he could spout off whatever he felt like at the moment, and his job was secure. The old time freelancers had watched the industry boom and bust cycles and might not have recognized their own value. * Highly questionable, but at least AFTER the book in the original post was created, Stan's reputation for ignoring and downplaying his artists does seem somewhat exaggerated. He might not have granted Kirby and Ditko's creative primacy on the Fantastic Four and Doctor Strange etc. (which has been basically proven as a stone cold fact) but he rarely (never?) left them out of the creative equation totally. In the aforementioned Origins of Marvel Comics (ferinstance) he does say that he talked the FF concept over with Kirby.... but doesn't mention how much of it was "borrowed" from Challengers of the Unknown. Surely back then the work culture was the same as now, in that once a person got out on their own, they quickly realized that everybody is looking out for themselves, especially the ones who had a family to support. It's not a game with rules anymore; it's survival for the present while trying to prove your worth as a continued employee. Kirby was supposed to be the best, and probably could have worked out special terms for himself even back then, but he just wilted instead. It's a personality type, I know, but extremely timid people can put themselves out there if it's important enough to them. If they don't, they get flattened. Maaaaybe. As I understand it, much of the reason that Kirby left Marvel in the first place* was that the owners (not Stan!) weren't willing to work with him and give him a better deal. He hoped that Carmine Infantino (being a fellow artist) would be more willing to deal than the suits. * And by "First place" I mean "second time" of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 3, 2016 22:13:54 GMT -5
I nominate this as the "Most Like CBR" post of the year.  Actually, a large segment of the posters at CBR drag Stan through the mud too. I just see it differently and I do speak up after it gets piled on, while Kirby is made out to be some type of meek saint that Stan trampled over. Since Kirby's dead, nobody would dare start any negative rumors. But he took cheap shots at Stan that he can never recant, whether they are the truth or only part. And people just take these rumors at face value because it's easy to feel sorry for somebody who let opportunities just slip away. I know it's easy to mock me since I don't fall in line with everybody on this subject, but that's how I feel. If you see my earlier post, I agree that Stan was integral to the success. It's just some of the language that you used was a bit extreme. It was a good point that someone made that Jack and Steve were allowed to shine under the Marvel system. It might have changed the course of history if Stan hadn't took a chance on the Fantastic Four with Jack. Jack Might have been buried with other artists that have been forgotten and Steve would never have had a Spider-man comic to make his legend. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 4, 2016 0:16:56 GMT -5
Yes, and black slaves should have been thankful for the plantation owners giving them a nice field to pick cotton.
I know this analogy is extreme but there's nothing to be thankful about when your work is exploited and the owners make millions and millions off your creativity and labor while the artist gets a one-time paycheck.
Seriously, that is what happened and it wasn't just Kirby and Ditko but a whole slew of other comic book creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 8:13:27 GMT -5
Yes, and black slaves should have been thankful for the plantation owners giving them a nice field to pick cotton. I know this analogy is extreme but there's nothing to be thankful about when your work is exploited and the owners make millions and millions off your creativity and labor while the artist gets a one-time paycheck. Seriously, that is what happened and it wasn't just Kirby and Ditko but a whole slew of other comic book creators. Comic books , from what I read, has always been the red headed step child of publishing and the system that you talk about were the- Take it or leave it rules -of the game. No one, not even Stan Lee , could envision what kind of money that these comic book characters could generate in 2016. Thankfully, in this day and age, creators can get compensated for what they create. I'm happy when I see The Walking Dead show succeed and the creators get the Millions instead of a company that had nothing to do with the creation. It was just a different crappy system back in the beginning. But my point stands . Maybe Kirby and Ditko AND Lee would have passed in the folds of history unknown like many great artists of the past. Hey, I didn't know who Matt Baker was until I started to frequent these forums. Your average person in the street don't know who Matt Baker, Will Eisner etc are. That's my point. As for the Plantation comparison, I'm going to Guess that Kirby and Ditko were making top money at the time as compared to other people drawing comics. It is, what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Mar 4, 2016 9:00:01 GMT -5
Comic books , from what I read, has always been the red headed step child of publishing and the system that you talk about were the- Take it or leave it rules -of the game. No one, not even Stan Lee , could envision what kind of money that these comic book characters could generate in 2016. Thankfully, in this day and age, creators can get compensated for what they create. I'm happy when I see The Walking Dead show succeed and the creators get the Millions instead of a company that had nothing to do with the creation. It was just a different crappy system back in the beginning. No, for those like Kirby there at the beginning, there was no such system or "rules of the game". Those rules were invented as the medium proved to be a successful money-maker. Jack Kirby's expectations would have been that whatever "rules" applied were similar to comic books' "nearest relations", the comic strips, where creators often retained ownership and made fortunes, even became celebrities. For some, like Bob Kane, it worked out that way. For some, like Will Eisner, it worked out so that at least some of those expectations were fulfilled. But Simon & Kirby would have had far different expectations regarding the likes of Captain America. "Wait, they're going to just give our character to some other guys and not give us anything more than they paid us for those first ten issues?!" |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 10:23:19 GMT -5
Comic books , from what I read, has always been the red headed step child of publishing and the system that you talk about were the- Take it or leave it rules -of the game. No one, not even Stan Lee , could envision what kind of money that these comic book characters could generate in 2016. Thankfully, in this day and age, creators can get compensated for what they create. I'm happy when I see The Walking Dead show succeed and the creators get the Millions instead of a company that had nothing to do with the creation. It was just a different crappy system back in the beginning. No, for those like Kirby there at the beginning, there was no such system or "rules of the game". Those rules were invented as the medium proved to be a successful money-maker. Jack Kirby's expectations would have been that whatever "rules" applied were similar to comic books' "nearest relations", the comic strips, where creators often retained ownership and made fortunes, even became celebrities. For some, like Bob Kane, it worked out that way. For some, like Will Eisner, it worked out so that at least some of those expectations were fulfilled. But Simon & Kirby would have had far different expectations regarding the likes of Captain America. "Wait, they're going to just give our character to some other guys and not give us anything more than they paid us for those first ten issues?!" Well, then it makes what Pat T said more likely, that they were wimps that didn't fight for what was theirs. They created Captain America and someone else owned it. No argument or fight from Kirby and Simon. |
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Mar 4, 2016 11:23:52 GMT -5
No, for those like Kirby there at the beginning, there was no such system or "rules of the game". Those rules were invented as the medium proved to be a successful money-maker. Jack Kirby's expectations would have been that whatever "rules" applied were similar to comic books' "nearest relations", the comic strips, where creators often retained ownership and made fortunes, even became celebrities. For some, like Bob Kane, it worked out that way. For some, like Will Eisner, it worked out so that at least some of those expectations were fulfilled. But Simon & Kirby would have had far different expectations regarding the likes of Captain America. "Wait, they're going to just give our character to some other guys and not give us anything more than they paid us for those first ten issues?!" Well, then it makes what Pat T said more likely, that they were wimps that didn't fight for what was theirs. They created Captain America and someone else owned it. No argument or fight from Kirby and Simon.I'm sure others will add to this, but here's a passage from Sean Howe's book--from the section about Marvel in 1966-7. "Joe Simon, meanwhile, was about to pursue a copyright claim of his own, on Captain America. Captain America had been-along with Iron Man, Thor, Sub-Mariner, and the Hulk-one of five characters announced for the Marvel Super Heroes animated show. By the spring of 1966, as the series began production, there was already a bonanza of licensing in place: paperbacks, LPs, model kits, costumes, buttons, pins, trading cards, board games, T-shirts and sweatshirts, toys, and stickers. "We've had movie offers for just about all our characters," Lee bragged. Simon would file suit against not only Goodman's Magazine Management, but also Krantz Films (distributor of the cartoon show) and Weston Merchandising (which had developed Captain Action, a figure that included Captain America paraphernalia). Simon, a businessman as well as an artist, was a greater legal threat than Burgos [creator of original Human Torch]. He'd kept extensive records-including the original sketches he'd done of Captain America in 1940. As he had with the Human Torch, Goodman took measures to reestablish Marvel's ownership of Captain America. Fantasy Masterpieces, a double-sized title that had run reprints of 1950s Atlas stories, suddenly shifted gears and re-presented Golden Age Captain America. But the credits-"art and editorial by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby"-were removed. Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain America," Goodman told him. "He wants the copyright and it looks like you're out." Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days. When I left Timely, all of my work was left with them." |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 12:34:57 GMT -5
Well, then it makes what Pat T said more likely, that they were wimps that didn't fight for what was theirs. They created Captain America and someone else owned it. No argument or fight from Kirby and Simon.I'm sure others will add to this, but here's a passage from Sean Howe's book--from the section about Marvel in 1966-7. "Joe Simon, meanwhile, was about to pursue a copyright claim of his own, on Captain America. Captain America had been-along with Iron Man, Thor, Sub-Mariner, and the Hulk-one of five characters announced for the Marvel Super Heroes animated show. By the spring of 1966, as the series began production, there was already a bonanza of licensing in place: paperbacks, LPs, model kits, costumes, buttons, pins, trading cards, board games, T-shirts and sweatshirts, toys, and stickers. "We've had movie offers for just about all our characters," Lee bragged. Simon would file suit against not only Goodman's Magazine Management, but also Krantz Films (distributor of the cartoon show) and Weston Merchandising (which had developed Captain Action, a figure that included Captain America paraphernalia). Simon, a businessman as well as an artist, was a greater legal threat than Burgos [creator of original Human Torch]. He'd kept extensive records-including the original sketches he'd done of Captain America in 1940. As he had with the Human Torch, Goodman took measures to reestablish Marvel's ownership of Captain America. Fantasy Masterpieces, a double-sized title that had run reprints of 1950s Atlas stories, suddenly shifted gears and re-presented Golden Age Captain America. But the credits-"art and editorial by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby"-were removed. Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain America," Goodman told him. "He wants the copyright and it looks like you're out." Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days. When I left Timely, all of my work was left with them." Divide and conquer. looks like Kirby sold out Simon, and in the end, both got nothing of lasting value. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 4, 2016 12:52:39 GMT -5
I'm sure others will add to this, but here's a passage from Sean Howe's book--from the section about Marvel in 1966-7. "Joe Simon, meanwhile, was about to pursue a copyright claim of his own, on Captain America. Captain America had been-along with Iron Man, Thor, Sub-Mariner, and the Hulk-one of five characters announced for the Marvel Super Heroes animated show. By the spring of 1966, as the series began production, there was already a bonanza of licensing in place: paperbacks, LPs, model kits, costumes, buttons, pins, trading cards, board games, T-shirts and sweatshirts, toys, and stickers. "We've had movie offers for just about all our characters," Lee bragged. Simon would file suit against not only Goodman's Magazine Management, but also Krantz Films (distributor of the cartoon show) and Weston Merchandising (which had developed Captain Action, a figure that included Captain America paraphernalia). Simon, a businessman as well as an artist, was a greater legal threat than Burgos [creator of original Human Torch]. He'd kept extensive records-including the original sketches he'd done of Captain America in 1940. As he had with the Human Torch, Goodman took measures to reestablish Marvel's ownership of Captain America. Fantasy Masterpieces, a double-sized title that had run reprints of 1950s Atlas stories, suddenly shifted gears and re-presented Golden Age Captain America. But the credits-"art and editorial by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby"-were removed. Kirby protested, but he was in a tough spot. "Simon said he created Captain America," Goodman told him. "He wants the copyright and it looks like you're out." Goodman offered a deal: if Kirby would side with Marvel in the dispute, the company would pay him an amount to match any future settlement with Simon. On July 12, 1966, Kirby signed a deposition describing the creation of Captain America. "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days. When I left Timely, all of my work was left with them." Divide and conquer. looks like Kirby sold out Simon, and in the end, both got nothing of lasting value. All I get from your arguments is your lack of compassion for those who were exploited and never in a position to fight for their rights. That the victim deserves what he gets for being in that position. Divide and conquer is a common tactic for those in power to keep their victims down. When creators in the comics field tried to unionize or protest for health insurance, they were fired or blackballed or similarly pressured. It seems that is what this boils down to-who do you side with, the owners or labor. You and Pat T are most probably Republicans and anti union. The rest of us are not. Some have compassion and some don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 13:12:35 GMT -5
Divide and conquer. looks like Kirby sold out Simon, and in the end, both got nothing of lasting value. All I get from your arguments is your lack of compassion for those who were exploited and never in a position to fight for their rights. That the victim deserves what he gets for being in that position. Divide and conquer is a common tactic for those in power to keep their victims down. When creators in the comics field tried to unionize or protest for health insurance, they were fired or blackballed or similarly pressured. It seems that is what this boils down to-who do you side with, the owners or labor. You and Pat T are most probably Republicans and anti union. The rest of us are not. Some have compassion and some don't. No. I'm a member of a Union and glad that I am. I guess This is a 70 year old story and rather than get emotional about it, I'm trying to Understand the human stories that are in the background. Nowadays, nobody creates characters for the big two because there are alternatives. Back then they were locked in a system where it was take it or leave it. That account makes Kirby look bad. Was he at odds with Simon? Who knows what really happened to make him side with Goodman. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 4, 2016 13:23:41 GMT -5
All I get from your arguments is your lack of compassion for those who were exploited and never in a position to fight for their rights. That the victim deserves what he gets for being in that position. Divide and conquer is a common tactic for those in power to keep their victims down. When creators in the comics field tried to unionize or protest for health insurance, they were fired or blackballed or similarly pressured. It seems that is what this boils down to-who do you side with, the owners or labor. You and Pat T are most probably Republicans and anti union. The rest of us are not. Some have compassion and some don't. No. I'm a member of a Union and glad that I am. I guess This is a 70 year old story and rather than get emotional about it, I'm trying to Understand the human stories that are in the background. Nowadays, nobody creates characters for the big two because there are alternatives. Back then they were locked in a system where it was take it or leave it. That account makes Kirby look bad. Was he at odds with Simon? Who knows what really happened to make him side with Goodman.Are we reading the same same quotes from the Sean Howe book? That Kirby had to choose between keeping his job and not antagonize his employer by waiving his rights and bequeathing it to Marvel the Corporation or joining Simon in a lawsuit. That at the time this was happening there were hardly any other places for Jack to work with the only skills he had and provide for his family. Kirby doesn't look bad, he looks exploited and desperate. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 13:29:04 GMT -5
No. I'm a member of a Union and glad that I am. I guess This is a 70 year old story and rather than get emotional about it, I'm trying to Understand the human stories that are in the background. Nowadays, nobody creates characters for the big two because there are alternatives. Back then they were locked in a system where it was take it or leave it. That account makes Kirby look bad. Was he at odds with Simon? Who knows what really happened to make him side with Goodman.Are we reading the same same quotes from the Sean Howe book? That Kirby had to choose between keeping his job and not antagonize his employer by waiving his rights and bequeathing it to Marvel the Corporation or joining Simon in a lawsuit. That at the time this was happening there were hardly any other places for Jack to work with the only skills he had and provide for his family. Kirby doesn't look bad, he looks exploited and desperate. We are in agreement about what happened, but put yourself In Simon's shoes. He must have felt stabbed in the back by Kirby.It goes back to what I said earlier, that they had no alternatives back then. It was David against Goliath and Goliath usually won. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2016 13:31:24 GMT -5
The way Goodman explained it to Kirby was interesting also. I wonder if Kirby tried to reach out to Simon to see if they could combine their forces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 4, 2016 13:47:42 GMT -5
The way Goodman explained it to Kirby was interesting also. I wonder if Kirby tried to reach out to Simon to see if they could combine their forces. I don't find it interesting but rather sickening. And Kirby needed to work, not get ostracized by the industry by suing one of the few comics companies around. The divide and conquer method as I stated is common among those in power. So is holding up your artwork as ransom until you sign more rights away as Marvel did to Kirby in later years. So I'm sorry, I'll rant against the Goliath, I'll denigrate Marvel's treatment of those who helped build the company and I'll always remind those about Stan Lee and where he stood on this issue. That is- with his father-in-law who paid his salary |
|
