|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 20:46:57 GMT -5
One of Kirby's works from his second Marvel tenure, 2001: A Space Odyssey is getting the art gallery treatment as part of the celebration of the movie's 50th anniversary. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 8, 2018 21:15:21 GMT -5
I thought the special release they wanted from Kirby was because he had talked publicly about claiming ownership of the characters he'd created. I'd never heard that before. That makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 9, 2018 10:17:46 GMT -5
I found a relevant quote here: www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/'In July of 1986, Marvel Vice President of Publishing Michael Z. Hobson issued a public statement telling the company's side of the story: "Marvel has long been willing to give Mr. Kirby such artwork in accordance with its artwork return policy. In fact, Marvel returned hundreds of pages of artwork to Mr. Kirby under its artwork return policy during his last period of employment between 1976 and 1978, and Mr. Kirby signed all release forms submitted to him at that time. Since that time, however, Mr. Kirby has refused to acknowledge Marvel's ownership of the underlying copyright in the artwork remaining in Marvel's possession, and Jack Kirby alone has made adverse ownership claims to some of the underlying characters which Marvel is presently publishing. These ownership claims by Jack Kirby were made despite the fact that Jack Kirby previously entered into several agreements with Marvel in which he acknowledged Marvel's proprietary rights in the artwork and underlying characters, and for which Mr. Kirby was fully paid by Marvel. Marvel nevertheless received a series of letters from Mr. Kirby's attorneys during the past four years asserting claims of copyright ownership. As a result of this correspondence, Marvel insisted that in order for Mr. Kirby to receive the artwork earmarked for him, Mr. Kirby would have to sign a longer, more detailed release than the release given to other artists. Mr. Kirby refused to do this and the matter has been at a standstill."' |
|
|
|
Post by hanzotherazor on Sept 28, 2018 9:06:01 GMT -5
I'm sure everyone has a million different opinions on what makes a good comic book adaptation of a movie or TV series, but I'm guessing most would agree that the most successful adaptations make up for their medium's lack of movement by scripting & illustrating in away that moves the reader's mind & eye almost as much as the source material, while having the unenviable task of linking parts of a film when the page count (or other issues) demanded editing scenes that had some meaning to the plot. If any of that is true, then Kirby adapting 2001: A Space Odysseyranks up there with one of the most boneheaded movie adaptation decisions in comic publishing history. Sorry to reply to such an old post, but I just wanted to respond to this -- IMO, the biggest problem with comic book movie adaptations is that they're most often just a hollow attempt to translate the movie's plot in comic book form. They're rarely satisfying works of art on their own, they often feel like a poor man's attempt to re-create the film experience, and after movies became more easily and quickly available for home viewing, it's no surprise they died off. They're more supplements to the film than works of art unto themselves. Jack Kirby's 2001 is a different case, because it really can be appreciated on its own due to Kirby's unique art and storytelling style. In fact, mainstream magazine Wired has even run an article about it earlier this year -- how many other movie adaptations generate this kind of coverage? In fact, it seems to have been reviewed and analyzed by other reviewers in recent years, both mainstream and comic book focused. People seem to appreciate it as a fusion of two geniuses of their chosen media, Jack's genius interpreting Kubrick's genius. And it was also a financial success, with Marvel deciding to create an ongoing series based on its success, as you know. Not bad for an adaptation of a movie that was 8 years old at that point! |
|
|
|
Post by hanzotherazor on Sept 28, 2018 10:08:14 GMT -5
Posted by tarkintino: Quote: The Jack Kirby of 1976 was not sensitive of hand or mind--he appeared to be about the ego of "King Kirby" and just thought (or someone else thought) he was the one man to handle such a massive concept and every careful way the film was set up to speak to the characters' situations.EGO? Are you truly going to consider that in discussing Kirby's version of 2001? It is more likely to think that Kirby was inspired by the movie and wanted to explore further what he had taken home from the movie that interested him and fired his imagination. Adaptation from book to comic or comic to movie or movie to comic is only ever going to be argumentative. Each carries it's own plus and minus. Everything is open to interpretation and what works in one creative realm doesn't always work well in another. I would hope that any child or youth or adult that had never seen 2001 the movie might be inclined to watching it if they read Kirby's version. Same for anyone that might have read Arthur C. Clarke's novel because they like the writer and hadn't seen the movie. Or even the reverse: people that have seen the movie and enjoyed it would like to revisit that "world" via book or comic. As for myself, I bought the Treasury Edition at the time and was highly impressed with the King's artistic vision and interpretation (the key here: KIRBY's interpretation) and thought the visuals he applied were shown to great effect in the larger format. I liked the Treasury enough so that i actively searched out the monthly which was somewhat difficult to find with the limited distribution here in Phoenix at the time. I can totally not understand someone not liking a piece of work, or a creator's output overall, but I don't understand why people need to attack the character of a creator who did work they don't like. Why assume that Jack was all about his ego -- maybe he just tried his best to make the comic as good as he could, and didn't succeed by your standards? A creator doing something you don't like doesn't indicate an ulterior motive or character flaw. From what I've read from Mark Evanier, Jack actually didn't seek out 2001 -- Marvel thought he'd be a great fit, so they asked him. Mark says Jack agreed to do it, as he rarely turned down an assignment, but said, "It was an honor, but not a lot of fun." He also thought that doing an ongoing series based on 2001 wasn't a good idea, but as Evanier points out, "he spent much of his life taking not-great ideas and trying to turn them into good comics." He had a contract with Marvel and was obligated to produce a certain amount of work for them -- it was a job, after all. Beyond that, 2001 looks and reads exactly like any other Jack Kirby comic from that time period. Jack was never a chameleon like Rich Buckler, he basically had his own distinct approach to doing comics -- and he certainly wasn't someone that drew great likenesses or someone that drew realistically. When Marvel hired Jack to do this project, they knew exactly what they would get -- the same kinda thing he'd been producing since 1970 and earlier. Why is it ego to produce a book the only way he knew how? |
|
|
|
Post by hanzotherazor on Sept 28, 2018 11:04:14 GMT -5
I found a relevant quote here: www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/'In July of 1986, Marvel Vice President of Publishing Michael Z. Hobson issued a public statement telling the company's side of the story: "Marvel has long been willing to give Mr. Kirby such artwork in accordance with its artwork return policy. In fact, Marvel returned hundreds of pages of artwork to Mr. Kirby under its artwork return policy during his last period of employment between 1976 and 1978, and Mr. Kirby signed all release forms submitted to him at that time. Since that time, however, Mr. Kirby has refused to acknowledge Marvel's ownership of the underlying copyright in the artwork remaining in Marvel's possession, and Jack Kirby alone has made adverse ownership claims to some of the underlying characters which Marvel is presently publishing. These ownership claims by Jack Kirby were made despite the fact that Jack Kirby previously entered into several agreements with Marvel in which he acknowledged Marvel's proprietary rights in the artwork and underlying characters, and for which Mr. Kirby was fully paid by Marvel. Marvel nevertheless received a series of letters from Mr. Kirby's attorneys during the past four years asserting claims of copyright ownership. As a result of this correspondence, Marvel insisted that in order for Mr. Kirby to receive the artwork earmarked for him, Mr. Kirby would have to sign a longer, more detailed release than the release given to other artists. Mr. Kirby refused to do this and the matter has been at a standstill."' There is some other equally relevant information in that link as well, including that Jack had already publicly disavowed any interest in challenging Marvel's copyright (in fact, I don't think he ever filed a lawsuit against Marvel in his lifetime) -- "When Marvel decided in 1984 to offer the return of its backstock of original art to creators, its offer to Kirby was able to account for only 88 pages of Kirby art out of a total of more than 8,000 pages that the artist had done for Marvel between 1960 and 1970 -- approximately one percent." Every other artist who received pages were asked to sign a simple four line agreement; Jack was sent a four page document that would not only force him to give up all current claims to copyright, but all future claims should copyright law change in a way that favored the creators. Every other artist was granted ownership of the pages, which were deemed a "gift" from Marvel -- Jack's contract would just make him the "physical custodian" of the art, with no right to sell it, publicly display it, or even give it away as a gift unless the recipient was also willing to sign that same four page contract. Why was Marvel so eager to have Jack sign the contract? Jack never signed away his rights to any of the characters, and he was never paid for those copyrights outside of his standard page rate. Hell, even Siegel and Shuster got $130 for Superman! |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 28, 2018 11:11:50 GMT -5
I found a relevant quote here: www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/'In July of 1986, Marvel Vice President of Publishing Michael Z. Hobson issued a public statement telling the company's side of the story: "Marvel has long been willing to give Mr. Kirby such artwork in accordance with its artwork return policy. In fact, Marvel returned hundreds of pages of artwork to Mr. Kirby under its artwork return policy during his last period of employment between 1976 and 1978, and Mr. Kirby signed all release forms submitted to him at that time. Since that time, however, Mr. Kirby has refused to acknowledge Marvel's ownership of the underlying copyright in the artwork remaining in Marvel's possession, and Jack Kirby alone has made adverse ownership claims to some of the underlying characters which Marvel is presently publishing. These ownership claims by Jack Kirby were made despite the fact that Jack Kirby previously entered into several agreements with Marvel in which he acknowledged Marvel's proprietary rights in the artwork and underlying characters, and for which Mr. Kirby was fully paid by Marvel. Marvel nevertheless received a series of letters from Mr. Kirby's attorneys during the past four years asserting claims of copyright ownership. As a result of this correspondence, Marvel insisted that in order for Mr. Kirby to receive the artwork earmarked for him, Mr. Kirby would have to sign a longer, more detailed release than the release given to other artists. Mr. Kirby refused to do this and the matter has been at a standstill."' There is some other equally relevant information in that link as well, including that Jack had already publicly disavowed any interest in challenging Marvel's copyright (in fact, I don't think he ever filed a lawsuit against Marvel in his lifetime) -- "When Marvel decided in 1984 to offer the return of its backstock of original art to creators, its offer to Kirby was able to account for only 88 pages of Kirby art out of a total of more than 8,000 pages that the artist had done for Marvel between 1960 and 1970 -- approximately one percent." Every other artist who received pages were asked to sign a simple four line agreement; Jack was sent a four page document that would not only force him to give up all current claims to copyright, but all future claims should copyright law change in a way that favored the creators. Every other artist was granted ownership of the pages, which were deemed a "gift" from Marvel -- Jack's contract would just make him the "physical custodian" of the art, with no right to sell it, publicly display it, or even give it away as a gift unless the recipient was also willing to sign that same four page contract. Why was Marvel so eager to have Jack sign the contract? Jack never signed away his rights to any of the characters, and he was never paid for those copyrights outside of his standard page rate. Hell, even Siegel and Shuster got $130 for Superman! He did sell his interest in Captain America, as Joe Simon detailed in his book and as came up when his estate tried to file for copyright in recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by hanzotherazor on Sept 28, 2018 14:19:22 GMT -5
Yeah, the article mentioned that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 1, 2020 13:15:31 GMT -5
My thoughts on Eternals #1 were deemed "competition" with this thread, so I have deleted them. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 1, 2020 16:24:26 GMT -5
Personally I find the differences between the Eternals and the Fourth World/New Gods more interesting than the similarities which are mostly at a very superficial level, IMO. The set-up of the three races isn't exactly what it might appear at first glance but it takes a while to unfold.
(edit:) forgot to add that I think anyone reading The Eternals for the first time would be well advised to keep an open mind and especially not to leap to conclusions based on how things usually work in superhero comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 1, 2020 17:51:28 GMT -5
Yes indeed, Eternals entertains without being a tradiotinal Superhero comic with being more in line for following a heroic melodrama. Kirby gave Eternals a truly classic mythological structure which for me is grander and better realized than what he delivered in his Thor/Asgard. New Gods on the other hand, has the stronger individual characters driving the stories. If only the King could have been given more time to fully exploring the Eternals mythos rather Marvel wanting it to become part of their superhero universe. The presence of the MU heroes/villains only lessens and dilutes the beauty and grandeur of what Kirby was creating.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2020 21:08:14 GMT -5
Yes indeed, Eternals entertains without being a tradiotinal Superhero comic with being more in line for following a heroic melodrama. Kirby gave Eternals a truly classic mythological structure which for me is grander and better realized than what he delivered in his Thor/Asgard. New Gods on the other hand, has the stronger individual characters driving the stories. If only the King could have been given more time to fully exploring the Eternals mythos rather Marvel wanting it to become part of their superhero universe. The presence of the MU heroes/villains only lessens and dilutes the beauty and grandeur of what Kirby was creating. I was reading an interview with Kieron Gillen in which the interviewer said something to the effect that the Eternals are known as "only Kirby's fourth best pantheon" (presumably after the New Gods, the Asgardians, and ...?). He tried to back-track and turn it into a back-handed compliment by saying it was meant as a testament to the wealth of Kirby's creativity rather than a knock on the Eternals but the disclaimer was unconvincing, to say the least. Equally disappointing was that Gillen didn't disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 5, 2020 21:26:57 GMT -5
Yes indeed, Eternals entertains without being a tradiotinal Superhero comic with being more in line for following a heroic melodrama. Kirby gave Eternals a truly classic mythological structure which for me is grander and better realized than what he delivered in his Thor/Asgard. New Gods on the other hand, has the stronger individual characters driving the stories. If only the King could have been given more time to fully exploring the Eternals mythos rather Marvel wanting it to become part of their superhero universe. The presence of the MU heroes/villains only lessens and dilutes the beauty and grandeur of what Kirby was creating. I was reading an interview with Kieron Gillen in which the interviewer said something to the effect that the Eternals are known as "only Kirby's fourth best pantheon" (presumably after the New Gods, the Asgardians, and ...?). He tried to back-track and turn it into a back-handed compliment by saying it was meant as a testament to the wealth of Kirby's creativity rather than a knock on the Eternals but the disclaimer was unconvincing, to say the least. Equally disappointing was that Gillen didn't disagree. Probably meant the Inhumans, which isn't a pantheon; but, that would be his other major civilization of advanced beings. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2020 23:28:48 GMT -5
Maybe that was it. I was wondering if maybe they meant Marvel's cosmic beings like Galactus, the Watcher, the Stranger, etc - but Kirby never systematised them into a pantheon and besides, there are a whole bunch that weren't his characters, like Eternity and all the other Doctor Strange ones.
Regardless, anyone who thinks that the Eternals are fourth-rate Kirby probably isn't the best choice to write their series - though of course the problem is that you'd be hard put to find a writer who doesn't think that, let alone one who agrees with me that it's actually a first-rate concept and that Kirby's series was one of the most original things Marvel ever published.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 5, 2020 23:36:40 GMT -5
Maybe that was it. I was wondering if maybe they meant Marvel's cosmic beings like Galactus, the Watcher, the Stranger, etc - but Kirby never systematised them into a pantheon and besides, there are a whole bunch that weren't his characters, like Eternity and all the other Doctor Strange ones. Regardless, anyone who thinks that the Eternals are fourth-rate Kirby probably isn't the best choice to write their series - though of course the problem is that you'd be hard put to find a writer who doesn't think that, let alone one who agrees with me that it's actually a first-rate concept and that Kirby's series was one of the most original things Marvel ever published. Quite frankly, it feels like a lot of modern writers think they are better than Kirby and then turn around and fail with his characters. Kind of hard to replicate genius; and, as Mark Evanier has often said of Jack, sometimes it takes you a while to grasp what he was saying to you. Jack was a very deep guy, behind the street-smart facade. He'd also seen and done things that most in comics can't fathom, in his real life. |
|
