|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 21, 2024 15:12:16 GMT -5
I'm not prepared to make light of any of Kirby's later creations. When New Gods #1 came out he was 53. That's a lot of creative years under his belt. During his DC run, I think Kamandi, Omac and Mr. Miracle were really good books. How many comic pros can boast a career that spans his ? I've come to notice that many writers run out of ideas after 3 years on a book before it's time for them to move on. He still came up with the Eternals and Captain Victory up into the 80's.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 21, 2024 16:44:17 GMT -5
I'm not prepared to make light of any of Kirby's later creations. When New Gods #1 came out he was 53. That's a lot of creative years under his belt. During his DC run, I think Kamandi, Omac and Mr. Miracle were really good books. How many comic pros can boast a career that spans his ? I've come to notice that many writers run out of ideas after 3 years on a book before it's time for them to move on. He still came up with the Eternals and Captain Victory up into the 80's. You'll get no argument from me that Kirby's solo work in the '70s was some of his finest, but it wasn't crowd pleasing, and it never would have even happened if he didn't have his Marvel reputation to walk in on. Were Kirby born half a century later, he would have probably published independently and become a darling of the niche world of serious comic book afficienados, but the mainstream would have no idea who he was, and he'd likely never earn more than a passable living financially. In my mind, who created what, who made what financially successful, and who made great work with serious artistic merit are three separate and almost unrelated questions. Kirby created most of it and Kirby was far more talented, but Kirby wasn't going to make millions on his own, regardless of these factors. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 21, 2024 16:47:27 GMT -5
The credit began "produced by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby." How they broke that down into page rate, I don't know. Reading those comics with unspecific credits back in the day, it never occurred to me that Kirby might have doing some or all of the plotting, any more than I would have inferred that Lee might have had a hand in the pencilling. And what about those comics with deliberately opaque credits where three artists were involved, such as Strange Tales #140 or the Romita/John Buscema/Mooney issues of Amazing Spider-Man? Was Ditko the only artist to whom Lee conceded a plotting credit in those days? Allegedly, Stan was willing to coincide a plotting credit to Kirby as well, but it was Kirby's suggestion to use the "produced by" credit instead. Some sources state that Stan refused to talk to Ditko anymore after he was given the plotting credit as it took money out of Stan's pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 21, 2024 16:48:08 GMT -5
I needed to read later comments. Deleting this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 21, 2024 17:20:58 GMT -5
Here's how those credits worked: Kirby and Romita provided breakdowns (on the art boards in the former case, as thumbnails in the latter), Heck and Buscema did the actual pencil art (in Big John's case probably without shading indicators), Sinnott and Mooney did the inks/finished art. Thus, it was Jolly Jack and Jazzy Johnny who determined the pacing, staging, and other major storytelling decisions.
Cei-U! I summon the decoder ring!
EDIT: Somehow, I managed to eff up the quote function and I can't figure out how to fix up. Hope you all can deduce which part of chay's post I'm responding to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 21, 2024 17:36:46 GMT -5
I'm not prepared to make light of any of Kirby's later creations. When New Gods #1 came out he was 53. That's a lot of creative years under his belt. During his DC run, I think Kamandi, Omac and Mr. Miracle were really good books. How many comic pros can boast a career that spans his ? I've come to notice that many writers run out of ideas after 3 years on a book before it's time for them to move on. He still came up with the Eternals and Captain Victory up into the 80's. You'll get no argument from me that Kirby's solo work in the '70s was some of his finest, but it wasn't crowd pleasing, and it never would have even happened if he didn't have his Marvel reputation to walk in on. Were Kirby born half a century later, he would have probably published independently and become a darling of the niche world of serious comic book afficienados, but the mainstream would have no idea who he was, and he'd likely never earn more than a passable living financially. In my mind, who created what, who made what financially successful, and who made great work with serious artistic merit are three separate and almost unrelated questions. Kirby created most of it and Kirby was far more talented, but Kirby wasn't going to make millions on his own, regardless of these factors.Yes. Plus something no one has mentioned , Kirby was probably the highest paid artist in comics during the 60's-70's. Credit was one issue but he wasn't a pauper by any means. The system is set up so that when the big 2 have no use for you, they discard you. The Image 7 knew this. They saw the way Ditko, Kirby and even Siegel and Shuster was treated. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 21, 2024 17:48:11 GMT -5
Kirby did start his own company, Mainline, with Joe Simon. It was successful until one of the biggest comics implosions in history did them in. Goodman came close to shutting down Marvel when that happened.
By the time the direct market could have supported a Kirby company, he was in his 70s and not on top of his game. He was making more in animation by that time anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 21, 2024 17:52:31 GMT -5
Kirby did start his own company, Mainline, with Joe Simon. It was successful until one of the biggest comics implosions in history did them in. Goodman came close to shutting down Marvel when that happened. By the time the direct market could have supported a Kirby company, he was in his 70s and not on top of his game. He was making more in animation by that time anyway. Man, Timing is everything. I wonder if Kirby had the skill to push and promote himself. He seemed to be a quiet man. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 21, 2024 17:59:48 GMT -5
Kirby did start his own company, Mainline, with Joe Simon. It was successful until one of the biggest comics implosions in history did them in. Goodman came close to shutting down Marvel when that happened. By the time the direct market could have supported a Kirby company, he was in his 70s and not on top of his game. He was making more in animation by that time anyway. Man, Timing is everything. I wonder if Kirby had the skill to push and promote himself. He seemed to be a quiet man. No, he was all about the work. That is why his team up with Simon worked so well. Simon was good at business. And Kirby was working all the time to get those pages out. Stan was not, he only came to the office 3 days a week, and writing dialog did not take the time drawing a book does, by a big factor. Stan could script two books a day. That gave Stan a lot of time to promote Marvel, and himself. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 21, 2024 18:44:16 GMT -5
Yes, Lee was the villain with little creative input and a lot of time to do other things.
Yes, Kirby and Ditko's post-Marvel work proved they "had it" all along, and did not need Lee's creativity to make books sell or lead a new revolution in comic books.
Nevermind The Amazing Spider-Man reaching unprecedented heights of popularity after Ditko's departure, making him the unchallenged flagship character of Marvel. Nevermind Captain America took on a more dramatic sense of sociopolitical relevance 9for the kind of character Rogers/Cap were) in the books produced after Kirby's involvement, with subjects you were never going to see in his stint.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 21, 2024 19:02:20 GMT -5
This is a Stan Lee thread, but since we're talking a lot about Kirby, I'd like to point out that the documentary Kirby at War is currently available for free on Tubi. Heartily recommended.
It's very moving, gives a possible origin for the Kirby crackle, and is a nice tribute to a man who not only created a lot of our modern icons, but was also a brave soldier. My hat's off to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 21, 2024 19:09:16 GMT -5
In 1967, Spider-Man was Marvel's best seller, but still only 14th on the list and being outsold by Superman 2 to one.
Unprecedented?
In 1968, ASM sold about the same as 1966, Ditko's last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 21, 2024 19:12:04 GMT -5
Yes, Lee was the villain with little creative input and a lot of time to do other things. Yes, Kirby and Ditko's post-Marvel work proved they "had it" all along, and did not need Lee's creativity to make books sell or lead a new revolution in comic books. Nevermind The Amazing Spider-Man reaching unprecedented heights of popularity after Ditko's departure, making him the unchallenged flagship character of Marvel. Nevermind Captain America took on a more dramatic sense of sociopolitical relevance 9for the kind of character Rogers/Cap were) in the books produced after Kirby's involvement, with subjects you were never going to see in his stint. Stan did take credit for things he didn't do and taking pay for the work of other's. Where was I wrong about his workload? |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 21, 2024 20:23:39 GMT -5
Kirby did start his own company, Mainline, with Joe Simon. It was successful until one of the biggest comics implosions in history did them in. Goodman came close to shutting down Marvel when that happened. By the time the direct market could have supported a Kirby company, he was in his 70s and not on top of his game. He was making more in animation by that time anyway. Mainline was done in by the anti-comics hysteria frightening their distributor, who was return whole bundles, unopened. Atlas nearly went under when their distributor, American News went under, leaving them without distribution. Those were separate causes. That is why Goodman ended up going with Independent News, which was owned by Harry Donenfeld, who owned DC and why they were limited to 8 titles per month, so they couldn't flood the stands. From 1952-56, Goodman had his own distribution, Atlas News Company. He shut it down and switched to American News which was the biggest periodical distributor; but, in that same year, it lost a judgement tot he Justice department, for restraint of trade and was forced to divest its holding. Goodman was forced to make the deal with Independent News, which lasted until around 1966, when Marvel secured new distribution and started increasing the number of titles they were publishing. that is also a factor in them taking the lead in the market, as they were flooding the stands again, when the whole price change fiasco came about. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 21, 2024 20:43:06 GMT -5
Okay, folks. Look like a friendly warning is needed.
* Attack the argument; not the person.
* Generalizing a person's arguing style is an attack on the person.
* Sarcasm doesn't make for friendly discourse.
Please don't make me have to shut this down. There is absolutely no reason to be hostile to one another while having an intellectual discussion. Jack and Stan don't need anyone to win an argument for them here.
|
|
