|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 22, 2024 19:49:57 GMT -5
I'm glad someone mentioned affidavit return fraud. That cost us a lot of good comics that were cancelled to soon. And here's Ditko's comment about whether Stan created Spider-Man: Is Ditko swiping from Jack Chick? Ayn Rand. Same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 22, 2024 19:51:21 GMT -5
Commond, I think by that time, Kirby had already moved to California, and I don't think he had any desire to be an art director. But I do believe he was developing the New Gods for Marvel. If I can find the specifics, I'll post it. But basically, rather than negotiate a new contract in terms of royalties and guaranteed pages, the new company sent him a letter to sign saying he has no rights and he must sign it to get any work. He walked. Kirby did sign the documents, however. They were part of the conditions of the sale to Perfect Film & Chemical Corporation. Marvel were able to produce them later on when Kirby's lawyers were pressing them for copyright claims. Marvel initially won the lawsuit with Kirby's children after the court decided that all of Jack's work had been work-for-hire. He signed because he had a family to support had to work. The company extorted him. He was forced to sign something he didn't agree with. And he started looking to get out. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 22, 2024 19:53:19 GMT -5
Is Ditko swiping from Jack Chick? Ayn Rand. Same thing. Thats not nice. Jack Chick is at least amusing … and much easier to read. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 22, 2024 19:55:03 GMT -5
Thats not nice. Jack Chick is at least amusing … and much easier to read. Harsh, but fair. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 22, 2024 19:55:41 GMT -5
I really think if he gave the credit where it was due and stuck to talking about his skill as a scripter and editor, we would not be having most of this discussion.
There are numerous examples of Stan doing just this in interviews over the years. Where things got extreme is when money became involved and after the movies became successful. If Stan, or Goodman, had paid Jack a writing credit then some of the tension would have been eased. There still would have been frustrations but at least it wouldn't have stuck in Jack's caw so much. Ditko was always going to have a blow up with Stan and depart regardless of money. If Stan had been around more when Jack returned to Marvel in 1975 perhaps he wouldn't have been treated so poorly and perhaps the story would have had a slightly happier ending. The book that tark posted has Stan having all the original ideas, and his story didn't change much after that. Except he couldn't keep the details straight. Show me where Stan later said Ditko created Dr. Strange withouthim (which he did] or Kirby came up with the Thor comic (which he did) |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 8:08:52 GMT -5
Kirby did sign the documents, however. They were part of the conditions of the sale to Perfect Film & Chemical Corporation. Marvel were able to produce them later on when Kirby's lawyers were pressing them for copyright claims. Marvel initially won the lawsuit with Kirby's children after the court decided that all of Jack's work had been work-for-hire. The company extorted him. He was forced to sign something he didn't agree with. And he started looking to get out. This type of rhetoric makes it seem like he was scraping by. Kirby was being paid a large amount of money to do something he loved. I don't know about anyone else, but I wish I was being paid over 200k to do something I loved. I get that as a freelancer Kirby may have been worried about being stiffed on his page rate by the new owners, or worried about not having any guarantees. I also imagine he had financial pressures from supporting his family. But I don't believe in any hard time blues story. The impression I get is that Kirby's bark was worse than his bite. He may have been unhappy about his circumstances, but he wasn't prepared to walk away like Ditko did. Just like he didn't take the plotting credit. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 23, 2024 8:41:09 GMT -5
He was a child of the Depression and the most important thing for him was having work. So walking away without somewhere to go was not something he would do. And rather than treating him like the man who helped create the Marvel Universe with the respect he was due, they wanted to offer him less. So he did, in fact walk. The refused to negotiate on anything and just sent a letter with less favorable conditions than he had. You want to think Marvel books sold manly because of Stan and he deserved all the money he got. But Kirby, who did more of the creating and was probably more responsible for the success deserved nothing. Okay.
And his dream job was not comics but working in the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 8:42:27 GMT -5
There are numerous examples of Stan doing just this in interviews over the years. Where things got extreme is when money became involved and after the movies became successful. If Stan, or Goodman, had paid Jack a writing credit then some of the tension would have been eased. There still would have been frustrations but at least it wouldn't have stuck in Jack's caw so much. Ditko was always going to have a blow up with Stan and depart regardless of money. If Stan had been around more when Jack returned to Marvel in 1975 perhaps he wouldn't have been treated so poorly and perhaps the story would have had a slightly happier ending. The book that tark posted has Stan having all the original ideas, and his story didn't change much after that. Except he couldn't keep the details straight. Show me where Stan later said Ditko created Dr. Strange withouthim (which he did] or Kirby came up with the Thor comic (which he did) I don't find The Origin of Marvel Comics to be quite as egregious as you do. It's a fluff piece. Regarding Thor, here's Stan in a March 1967 interview on New York’s WBAI-FM radio. “I always say that Jack is the greatest mythological creator in the world. When we kicked Thor around, and we came out with him... I thought he would just be another book. And I think that Jack has turned him into one of the greatest fictional characters there are." Here's Stan talking to Roy Thomas in 1998: "90% of the "Tales of Asgard" stories were Jack's plots, and they were great! He knew more about Norse mythology than I ever did (or at least he enjoyed making it up!). I was busy enough just putting in the copy after he drew it." The Roy Thomas chat has this great quote from Stan: "I have never done research on anything in my life. Out here in Los Angeles, I work with and know so many screenwriters, and it amazes me the amount of research these guys do. I was going to do something about a prison, and I gave up the project because I realized I don't have any idea what the rituals are inside a prison and I just couldn't be bothered to look it up. But these guys would go and spend a week visiting a prison—even talking to the warden! I'm just no good at that." I don't believe that Stan knew anything about Norse mythology. Certainly not to the extent that he described it in the Origins book. I also don't believe that Kirby was as well versed on it as is made out. Marvel's Thor has very little to do with actual Norse mythology. It's just a bunch of established superhero tropes adapted to a powerful new character who barely resembles the actual mythological character. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 23, 2024 8:57:14 GMT -5
And in Origins, he clearly states that he was trying to create a "Super-God" and after kept coming up with ideas he didn't think worked, he came up with using Norse mythology, that he was always fascinated him. All him. And who helped him write it? Not Kirby, but his brother Larry. Kirby is brought in after it is all created to do a good job drawing Thor. What utter hogwash. You want to completely disregard a book that become accepted history and the Marvel company line for decades. Your quote shows he gave Kirby credit for making the book better, which, considering he was pretty much doing all the writing is an understatement. But credit for creating the character, which Kirby did? No, Stan would never do that.
Kirby was versed in Norse Mythology and had used Thor in comics at least twice before.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 23, 2024 9:30:16 GMT -5
I regard all those contracts as coercive and signed under duress. Why shouldn't the creator retain the rights over his or her creations just as a prose writer usually would? "Because it's comics" is the answer, which is no answer. Kirby had little choice but to sign such a contract or a similar one with some other company, just as he had little choice but to move back and forth between Marvel and DC in the '760s and '70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 23, 2024 9:42:21 GMT -5
The Roy Thomas chat has this great quote from Stan: "I have never done research on anything in my life. Out here in Los Angeles, I work with and know so many screenwriters, and it amazes me the amount of research these guys do. I was going to do something about a prison, and I gave up the project because I realized I don't have any idea what the rituals are inside a prison and I just couldn't be bothered to look it up. But these guys would go and spend a week visiting a prison—even talking to the warden! I'm just no good at that." I don't believe that Stan knew anything about Norse mythology. Certainly not to the extent that he described it in the Origins book. I also don't believe that Kirby was as well versed on it as is made out. Marvel's Thor has very little to do with actual Norse mythology. It's just a bunch of established superhero tropes adapted to a powerful new character who barely resembles the actual mythological character. His denials notwithstanding, Stan apparently did enough research to crib the "thee/thy/thou" verbiage from the section of Bulfinch's Mythology covering Norse mythology, verbiage Bulfinch did not use in his coverage of Greco-Roman or Egyptian myths. He didn't even use it in his chapters on Charlemagne and the Arthurian Cycle. That can't be a coincidence.
Cei-U! I summon the counterargument!
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 9:49:27 GMT -5
He was a child of the Depression and the most important thing for him was having work. So walking away without somewhere to go was not something he would do. And rather than treating him like the man who helped create the Marvel Universe with the respect he was due, they wanted to offer him less. So he did, in fact walk. The refused to negotiate on anything and just sent a letter with less favorable conditions than he had. You want to think Marvel books sold manly because of Stan and he deserved all the money he got. But Kirby, who did more of the creating and was probably more responsible for the success deserved nothing. Okay.
And his dream job was not comics but working in the movies.
He was a child of the depression and he was making 200k doing freelance artwork. Think about that for a second. You've continually said that DC books were outselling Marvel books throughout the 60s, so what value did the Marvel Universe have in 1969? If his dream job was working in the movies, he would have found out there are worse jobs than working in comics. I don't believe that Marvel books sold because of Stan. What I don't believe in is Kirby martyrdom. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 23, 2024 9:56:37 GMT -5
Where does that 200K figure come from? I have not seen that.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 10:01:32 GMT -5
And in Origins, he clearly states that he was trying to create a "Super-God" and after kept coming up with ideas he didn't think worked, he came up with using Norse mythology, that he was always fascinated him. All him. And who helped him write it? Not Kirby, but his brother Larry. Kirby is brought in after it is all created to do a good job drawing Thor. What utter hogwash. You want to completely disregard a book that become accepted history and the Marvel company line for decades. Your quote shows he gave Kirby credit for making the book better, which, considering he was pretty much doing all the writing is an understatement. But credit for creating the character, which Kirby did? No, Stan would never do that.
Kirby was versed in Norse Mythology and had used Thor in comics at least twice before.
Why is Origins being held up as Gospel? I'm surprised people don't believe it was ghost written. Let's pretend that Kirby was as versed in Norse mythology as his family like to claim he was. Did he approach Stan with a pitch to do a Thor series or was it just an idea that he came up when Lee was prattling on about the next book they wanted to come up with? I think it's fairly obvious that it was Kirby who knew some facts about Norse mythology and that Stan had never heard of it. That doesn't mean that Kirby suddenly woke up out of bed one morning and thought "We've gotta do a Thor book!" Not only that, but a huge chunk of Marvel Norse mythology never happened in the actual mythology. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 23, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5
Where does that 200K figure come from? I have not seen that. It's the adjustment for inflation. |
|
