|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 23, 2024 22:23:26 GMT -5
Kirby did the cover for Tales of Suspense 39 and most likely designed the costume. He also did layouts for Heck in the Avengers and other books. Stan would send artist to Kirby if they had trouble plotting. So Kirby did have input in ToS 39. Was it layouts, maybe, but compared to Stan's Origins story, I can say, yes one is not remembering precisely and one is a lie. I'm in the camp that believes the first Iron Man story was the one in Tales of Suspense 40, and that Heck's version came second, with Kirby's work scripted to disguise its original intent as an origin story. If so, Jack could very well have been accurately recalling creating the Iron Man character, but not the revisions that led to Heck's alternative origin being the one that saw print first. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 23, 2024 23:47:10 GMT -5
Another point to keep in mind is that many statements recorded were in fanzines, where the level of professional journalism is at least questionable, with people sometimes misquoted or context missing, not to mention those with outright agendas. I read the Comics Journal interview between Gary Groth and Kirby, where Jack makes claims that Stan wrote nothing. At the time, that was one of the first issues of the Journal I had read and I was incensed by what he said in there. Over time and multiple issues, I began to see Gary Groth's agenda in many pieces in the Journal, with criticism that was less about the work and more about attacking rival publishers, big and small, to petty personal vendettas, and that Groth often provoked reactions in subjects to get controversial statements, that helped sell the Journal more than record the history. I also read more and more comics history, other interviews and more objective recollections from neutral observers. It is well to remember that these sources are not always credible and not always ating in good faith, in their publication. The majority probably were, but there are definite pockets of agendas, as well as just poor editing and interviewing.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 24, 2024 1:42:02 GMT -5
Another point to keep in mind is that many statements recorded were in fanzines, where the level of professional journalism is at least questionable, with people sometimes misquoted or context missing, not to mention those with outright agendas. I read the Comics Journal interview between Gary Groth and Kirby, where Jack makes claims that Stan wrote nothing. At the time, that was one of the first issues of the Journal I had read and I was incensed by what he said in there. Over time and multiple issues, I began to see Gary Groth's agenda in many pieces in the Journal, with criticism that was less about the work and more about attacking rival publishers, big and small, to petty personal vendettas, and that Groth often provoked reactions in subjects to get controversial statements, that helped sell the Journal more than record the history. I also read more and more comics history, other interviews and more objective recollections from neutral observers. It is well to remember that these sources are not always credible and not always ating in good faith, in their publication. The majority probably were, but there are definite pockets of agendas, as well as just poor editing and interviewing. And, even when there isn't a clear unprofessional agenda in place, when you have someone passionately convinced Kirby was cheated, and they get to talking before the tape gets rolling, they may sway his thinking just because when someone tells you "poor baby," you're inclined to agree and lean into it. When someone tells you you were the best, it was all because of you, you're inclined to agree and lean into it. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 24, 2024 1:50:13 GMT -5
I think Groth was scum. He bashed comics regularly and turns around and produces porn comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 24, 2024 3:28:13 GMT -5
Kirby's claim that he and Ed Herron created Captain Marvel is patent nonsense. Roscoe Fawcett, who oversaw the development of the company's comic book line, made it clear that Bill Parker and C.C. Beck created the character based on Roscoe's mandate that they "give me a Superman whose alter ego is a ten-year-old boy" (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much). Moreover, it wasn't Simon and Kirby who drew Captain Marvel Adventures #1 but the once-in-a-lifetime team of Kirby and Dick Briefer. S&K did, however, create Mr. Scarlet (without Pinky) for Wow Comics #1.
As for that TCJ interview, it wasn't just Groth egging Jack on. Roz Kirby, who'd bitterly resented Stan Lee ever since his interview with Eye Magazine in '66 which minimized Jack's input (which Stan claimed was the article's author's doing, not his), can be heard throughout the Journal piece pushing Jack to bash Stan and claim full credit for creating the Marvel heroes. And while it's been many years since I read it, I remember thinking at the time that Kirby seemed to be losing his faculties and might even be showing early signs of dementia, which Groth and Roz were exploiting to advance their own agendas. But I could be completely misremembering that.
Like I said way back on page 2, the truth lies more-or-less in the middle, with Kirby's claims to creative credit having more legitimacy than Stan's.
Cei-U!
I summon the summation!
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 24, 2024 6:41:20 GMT -5
Not to be pedantic, but it was the New York Herald Tribune article that upset Roz and Jack.  |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 24, 2024 6:46:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 24, 2024 6:53:24 GMT -5
Another point to keep in mind is that many statements recorded were in fanzines, where the level of professional journalism is at least questionable, with people sometimes misquoted or context missing, not to mention those with outright agendas. I read the Comics Journal interview between Gary Groth and Kirby, where Jack makes claims that Stan wrote nothing. At the time, that was one of the first issues of the Journal I had read and I was incensed by what he said in there. Over time and multiple issues, I began to see Gary Groth's agenda in many pieces in the Journal, with criticism that was less about the work and more about attacking rival publishers, big and small, to petty personal vendettas, and that Groth often provoked reactions in subjects to get controversial statements, that helped sell the Journal more than record the history. I also read more and more comics history, other interviews and more objective recollections from neutral observers. It is well to remember that these sources are not always credible and not always ating in good faith, in their publication. The majority probably were, but there are definite pockets of agendas, as well as just poor editing and interviewing. Reminds me of interviews with wrestlers, decades after their primes, with embellishments, lies, half-remembered details, etc. Hard to pinpoint the exact truth, and I feel the same applies to this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 24, 2024 8:56:08 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons a consensus will never be reached on this question is that many comics readers see very little of value in Kirby's solo work and thus it's hard for them to believe he contributed much of value to the Marvel Universe: maybe a few bare-bones concepts that required someone like Stan to bring them to life; just as, for them, even Kirby's most highly acclaimed solo work would have been infinitely better if only he'd had someone like Stan to write the scripts for them. I think that that's totally misguided and that a New Gods scripted by Stan Lee, or whoever else you'd care to name, would have been an artistic disaster. Even if Kirby only offered the visuals, being an artist, as the main contribution to the early Marvel that still means he was a part of the creation of the characters. I don't think HR Giger could have anticipated someone would take Necronom IV and turn into a multi million dollar franchise. But without his art for inspiration would Ridley Scott took Dan O'Bannon's story to screen and made it the success that it is now? Movies, comics, novels, toys, video games, cross overs with other franchises? Alien was the game changing science fiction film that made us all look at science fiction in a different light from that point on. And I think that whatever combination of contributions, Kirby, Lee or Ditko made changed the way people saw comics. They were kid's fair. Now we have middle aged men in discussions about the validity of comics in the entertainment industry.  I think we can say that all three of them (and many more other talents following) made comic books what they are today. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 24, 2024 9:16:09 GMT -5
Kirby's claim that he and Ed Herron created Captain Marvel is patent nonsense. Roscoe Fawcett, who oversaw the development of the company's comic book line, made it clear that Bill Parker and C.C. Beck created the character based on Roscoe's mandate that they "give me a Superman whose alter ego is a ten-year-old boy" (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much). Moreover, it wasn't Simon and Kirby who drew Captain Marvel Adventures #1 but the once-in-a-lifetime team of Kirby and Dick Briefer. S&K did, however, create Mr. Scarlet (without Pinky) for Wow Comics #1. As for that TCJ interview, it wasn't just Groth egging Jack on. Roz Kirby, who'd bitterly resented Stan Lee ever since his interview with Eye Magazine in '66 which minimized Jack's input (which Stan claimed was the article's author's doing, not his), can be heard throughout the Journal piece pushing Jack to bash Stan and claim full credit for creating the Marvel heroes. And while it's been many years since I read it, I remember thinking at the time that Kirby seemed to be losing his faculties and might even be showing early signs of dementia, which Groth and Roz were exploiting to advance their own agendas. But I could be completely misremembering that. Like I said way back on page 2, the truth lies more-or-less in the middle, with Kirby's claims to creative credit having more legitimacy than Stan's. Cei-U! I summon the summation! Could you find the source for that claim. I have only seen where Kirby says he and Herron created The Red Skull, (and there might be a dispute there with Simon). He did say Herron helped create Captain Marvel, but was not right in that. It was Captain Marvel Jr. |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jan 24, 2024 9:31:19 GMT -5
Another point to keep in mind is that many statements recorded were in fanzines, where the level of professional journalism is at least questionable, with people sometimes misquoted or context missing, not to mention those with outright agendas. I read the Comics Journal interview between Gary Groth and Kirby, where Jack makes claims that Stan wrote nothing. At the time, that was one of the first issues of the Journal I had read and I was incensed by what he said in there. Over time and multiple issues, I began to see Gary Groth's agenda in many pieces in the Journal, with criticism that was less about the work and more about attacking rival publishers, big and small, to petty personal vendettas, and that Groth often provoked reactions in subjects to get controversial statements, that helped sell the Journal more than record the history. I also read more and more comics history, other interviews and more objective recollections from neutral observers. It is well to remember that these sources are not always credible and not always ating in good faith, in their publication. The majority probably were, but there are definite pockets of agendas, as well as just poor editing and interviewing. And, even when there isn't a clear unprofessional agenda in place, when you have someone passionately convinced Kirby was cheated, and they get to talking before the tape gets rolling, they may sway his thinking just because when someone tells you "poor baby," you're inclined to agree and lean into it. When someone tells you you were the best, it was all because of you, you're inclined to agree and lean into it. Mark Evanier's book KIRBY, in his efforts to paint Kirby as someone who had been cheated all through his career, left me feeling like Kirby was a rube - an idiot who didn't know which end of a contract was up. It really put Kirby, unintentionally, I'm sure, in a very sad light. By the end, I'm thinking, "Damn, he deserves to get cheated!". The truth, I'm sure, is that Kirby went into all of his business arrangements/partnerships knowing full well he was a hired gun. He worked within the system, and eventually helped change the system. But he knew the comics industry was stacked against the creative talent, but needed to feed his family and loved what he did. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 24, 2024 9:35:05 GMT -5
And, even when there isn't a clear unprofessional agenda in place, when you have someone passionately convinced Kirby was cheated, and they get to talking before the tape gets rolling, they may sway his thinking just because when someone tells you "poor baby," you're inclined to agree and lean into it. When someone tells you you were the best, it was all because of you, you're inclined to agree and lean into it. ..which means the person interviewed cannot be trusted to objectively recall or record history, which I've found time and time again in certain Kirby interviews that usually ended with the nonsensical "Stan did not write a thing" song. Kirby's claim that he and Ed Herron created Captain Marvel is patent nonsense. Roscoe Fawcett, who oversaw the development of the company's comic book line, made it clear that Bill Parker and C.C. Beck created the character based on Roscoe's mandate that they "give me a Superman whose alter ego is a ten-year-old boy" (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much). Ahh, so we have an example of Kirby trying to write himself into the creation of one of the most famous comic book characters in history. Interesting how his defenders never mention his false claims, or flat-out lies, as such a claim is not simply a case of misremembering an event. However Roz Kirby and her husband seemed to have been on the same page about the "Stan did nothing" story, so its not a stretch to think her position was entirely based on Jack Kirby's longtime complaints, so TCJ interview was merely adding another person to bolster his (Jack's) claim. |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jan 24, 2024 9:44:14 GMT -5
If I weren't, I wouldn't have responded. I just don't know if lee ever sat down and said, "I think I'll invent me an interconnected comics universe." Not sure what you mean about having to read the comics with Superman on the cover and your definition of "reasonable" as it applies to funny books, to steal from slam bradley. Supes appears throughout the Jerry Lewis issue and he and some of the JLA pop up briefly in I5, which spoofs Marvel, DC, various creators and comics in general. He never even showed up inside the pages of Shazam 1 or Captain Action 1; he kinda sorta served as the host on Shazam and was actually being pushed aside on CA. Take a gander, Oz...   If Superman doesn't appear in any of those two, yes, that's quite shameless. Byrne had a little (shame):
As for what makes an appearance reasonable or not, I'll refer to my two previous examples: ASM #17-18 for the former and Annual #1 for thee later.
NEVER FORGET.  I literally CRIED on the way home after my dad bought this for me. No superman anywhere to be found. Just a bunch of Tomahawk reprints, etc. I have had serious trust issues, ever since. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 24, 2024 9:47:09 GMT -5
Interesting how his defenders never mention his false claims, or flat-out lies, as such a claim is not simply a case of misremembering an event. I'm not sure generalizing anyone who has ever defended Kirby into one lump statement is going to win you many points in this discussion. And the OP explicitly asks not to assume ill intent on the part of a creator when stating something factually incorrect. Please keep that in mind so that we can minimize inflammatory rhetoric and get down to good conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 24, 2024 10:25:11 GMT -5
Interesting how his defenders never mention his false claims, or flat-out lies, as such a claim is not simply a case of misremembering an event. I'm not sure generalizing anyone who has ever defended Kirby into one lump statement is going to win you many points in this discussion. And the OP explicitly asks not to assume ill intent on the part of a creator when stating something factually incorrect. Please keep that in mind so that we can minimize inflammatory rhetoric and get down to good conversation. Understood, shax. |
|
I think we can say that all three of them (and many more other talents following) made comic books what they are today.
