|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 19, 2024 14:11:23 GMT -5
This is an observation and speaks to who created the Marvel characters. Jack Kirby was an imagination engine from his first work in comics to the end of his career. He helped create Captain America, the Romance genre and the Challengers of the Unknown before he came back to Marvel. After Marvel he created The Fourth World, Kamandi, The Demon, The Eternals ...even his late work Captain Victory is filled to the brim with highly imaginative concepts. Ditko had a decade of creativity before Spider-Man, creating Captain Atom and bringing the Monster books with Kirby to Marvel. After he created the Creeper, The Question, reimagining Blue Beetle etc..
We know after a few years Ditko was plotting Spider-Man without input from Stan. And Kirby was plotting FF and Thor, so the things created in those books at the time was by the artists.
Stan did not create anything of note before the FF and after Kirby and Ditko left, nothing of note. So did Stan, who claims he originated the ideas for all the Marvel Universe, have a 3 year period where he singly came up with these legendary characters, and then nothing. Or did the artist, who had decades of creativity on their record dream them up? We are only talking about conceptualizing these characters, not their development in their books. We are also not talking about which characters were more successful, only who dreamed them up. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 19, 2024 14:31:37 GMT -5
Oh, the basic concepts originated with Kirby and Ditko, no argument there. I see Stan's editorial influence on the fleshing out of those characters as well as in his dialogue, especially in the early episodes of the FF, Spider-Man, and Thor, but I think by the time Kirby and Ditko were in their prime ('64-'68) he really was largely rewording the artists' page notes and calling himself the writer. I offer no defense for Stan's credit-hogging. I'm well aware of his faults as a creative partner and as a business man. And yet I'm always gonna love the Stan Lee-speak of those halcyon days of the mid- to late Silver Age, if only because it takes me back to my childhood and my unabashed love of the Marvel super-heroes.
Cei-U!
I summon the feet of clay!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jan 19, 2024 14:53:34 GMT -5
I tend to take anything said by a guy who says he is a wizard and worships a 3000 year old snake god who lives in his toilet with a grain of salt. No offense, but I always chuckle when people wat to reduce Moore down to something that simple. I read that long interview session he did, I forget with whom, but it was collected into a book or special magazine, in the 00s (or very early 10s), where he described his beliefs and practices and, basically, it boiled down to meditative practices and the whole snake god thing merely a focal point for meditation. Not very dissimilar to a mandala. At least, that was my take. Moreover, he has explicitly stated that the reason he chose the snake god to worship, is that it was (even in antiquity) an obvious con and didn't really exist! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 19, 2024 15:32:56 GMT -5
But it was. I did not ever say Stan contributed nothing. I was repeatedly told I said Stan contributed nothing. In actuality, you asked a question and another member answered your question. And yet that's exactly what the rules of the road and my OP in this thread ask you not to do, so please keep that in mind going forward. Thanks. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 19, 2024 15:39:22 GMT -5
So did Stan, who claims he originated the ideas for all the Marvel Universe, have a 3 year period where he singly came up with these legendary characters, and then nothing. Or did the artist, who had decades of creativity on their record dream them up? I think this is the one place where the Beatles analogy does work. John Lennon is an outstounding solo artist and Paul McCartney is a pretty adequate solo artist, but they brought something out in each other that was far greater than anything either of them could produce separately. Even "Yesterday," arguably the Beatles' masterpiece that was (by all accounts I'm aware of) entirely the work of Paul is on an entirely different plane than anything McCartney created when he wasn't inspired by, challenged by, and in competition with Lennon. You'll get no argument from me that Kirby was an absolute genius as a solo plotter and that Lee was not, and yet the work they created in that 3 year span was some of Kirby's absolute strongest. And I don't think I'm being unfair to him to suggest that concepts were his strong point far moreso than characterization. So while Lee may have been less than astonishing on his own, I think he gave us the rich, human, relatable characters that are otherwise lacking in most pre and post Marvel Kirby masterpieces. Kirby = Great. Lee = good enough. Kirby + Lee = Excelsior. And I guess that raises another hard question in the discussion of creatorship: does it matter more who generated the initial concept or who added the ingredients that made the concept great? Maybe Stan Lee says, "we need a superhero team that's also a family. We can call them The Fantastic Four," and Kirby comes up with the characters names, powers, origin, and basic plot, and then Lee goes, "let's make this rock monster guy hate himself just a little bit." At what point did the concept become iconic, and who made it that way? |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 19, 2024 15:43:41 GMT -5
No offense, but I always chuckle when people wat to reduce Moore down to something that simple. I read that long interview session he did, I forget with whom, but it was collected into a book or special magazine, in the 00s (or very early 10s), where he described his beliefs and practices and, basically, it boiled down to meditative practices and the whole snake god thing merely a focal point for meditation. Not very dissimilar to a mandala. At least, that was my take. Moore likes to play to his audience and play up the eccentric and iconoclast; but, to totally dismiss the points he makes, without some consideration, is reductive. I don't agree with everything he says, nor believe everything he says as gospel truth; but, he does provide interesting perspectives on various subjects that at least raise interesting questions. They are rarely knee-jerk reactions. To me, he is worth hearing on a subject, then contemplating what he says and weighing it against other input. Ok... how's this... "I tend to take anything said by a guy who says he is a wizard with a grain of salt." I think it was in this interview, over 25 years ago, when I read what he meant by wizardry. I've taken him just as seriously ever since. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 19, 2024 15:48:29 GMT -5
I think this is the one place where the Beatles analogy does work. John Lennon is an outstounding solo artist and Paul McCartney is a pretty adequate solo artist, but they brought something out in each other that was far greater than anything either of them could produce separately. Even "Yesterday," arguably the Beatles' masterpiece that was (by all accounts I'm aware of) entirely the work of Paul is on an entirely different plane than anything McCartney created when he wasn't inspired by, challenged by, and in competition with Lennon. Lee wasn't Paul McCartney, maybe Stuart Sutcliffe. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 19, 2024 16:33:59 GMT -5
I so disagree with your assessment of McCarthy would easily put up Paul's solo work against Lennon. It is true that they were magic together.
Of course this would be a matter of personal opinion.
From what I have read and the evidence I have seen, Stan was following Kirby's lead to do a team (reusing some of his Challenger concepts) and the characterizations were as much Kirby's as Lee.
But again, this has little to do with who created them. It was Kirby.
The discussion of who helped make a book popular has little to do with who created it.
Do we give creator credit to Chris Claremoint for the X-Men, Frank Miller for Daredevil?
If Stan merely said "I scripted these books in a way that gave them the appeal to the reader" I would have no problem. This is vastly different from saying "I thought of every one and told the artist what they were."
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 19, 2024 16:47:54 GMT -5
I will join the general consensus that Kirby was the idea man, for the most part ,but Lee shaped the ideas and made them more than just throw away characters. The Silver Surfer was added into the story by Kirby, but he was further developed by Lee. Maybe Kirby would never have revisited him again. Lee was the better story teller and the dialogue was well above anything that I read from Kirby. I don't subscribe to the theory that Kirby handed in complete stories with nary a discussion beforehand. Jim Shooter stated in one of his interviews that there were stacks of rejected Kirby pages in Lee's office. Lee insisted on certain story beats and particular storytelling in their book. As for the Ditko experience, Yes Ditko and Lee were not on talking terms at the end. That doesn't mean that the first 20 issues they didn't collaborate. I refuse to believe that Romita wrote Spider-man starting with #39, Don Heck wrote Avengers starting in #17, John Buscema wrote the FF starting with # 107 and so on. shaxper, I find your analogy with the Beatles interesting. I personally thought McCarthy to be the superior artist between him and Lennon. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 19, 2024 16:59:59 GMT -5
So did Stan, who claims he originated the ideas for all the Marvel Universe, have a 3 year period where he singly came up with these legendary characters, and then nothing. Or did the artist, who had decades of creativity on their record dream them up? We are only talking about conceptualizing these characters, not their development in their books. We are also not talking about which characters were more successful, only who dreamed them up. In Stan's mind, telling an artist that he wants to do a book about a teenage superhero is creating the character. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 19, 2024 17:09:25 GMT -5
shaxper wrote this: My analogies often fall down, but this reminded me of what I learnt from Netflix’s The Toys That Made Us, specifically the Transformers episode. I think about how we went from Diaclone created by Takara Toys to Hasbro acquiring the rights to the toys in the US, and then we reach the stage where Marvel develop the character-driven aspects (I may have simplified that; I am working from memory and appreciate any clarifications). There is a lot of co-creation and extrapolation occurring there. I’m not saying that’s a direct comparison with the Lee and Kirby/Ditko debate, but just making a point, perhaps badly, that creation can often be a nuanced thing. I realise such comparisons can be akin to apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 19, 2024 17:26:35 GMT -5
And how about this nugget to consider that you might not like- Lee was the boss and probably had the final say if they both disagreed on which idea would make the Final Cut.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 19, 2024 17:28:47 GMT -5
I . The discussion of who helped make a book popular has little to do with who created it. While I think you meant to be rhetorical, I think this question really is the key. The collector community looks for the simplest answer to "when was a character's first appearance?" And fandom extracts authorship from that, but YES Claremont is more responsible for the X-Men's success and YES Miller is more responsible for Daredevil's. I personally smack my head when fans praise Liefeld for Deadpool. What is creatorship? Making the first pitch? If Lee says, "we need another title to publish next month," does that make him creator? If Kirby says, "maybe we should do a sort of Challengers of the Unknown" does that make him creator? It's extremely tricky to argue who created what when more than one person was involved. In the end, people fall back on their feelings and biases because there is no real way to prove such a claim one way or the other. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that Kirby was the stronger of the two talents, but arguing that he was more of a creator than Lee is an exercise in futility. Unless you can prove that Lee had no involvement in the creative process, it can't be done. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 19, 2024 17:38:54 GMT -5
I . The discussion of who helped make a book popular has little to do with who created it. While I think you meant to be rhetorical, I think this question really is the key. The collector community looks for the simplest answer to "when was a character's first appearance?" And fandom extracts authorship from that, but YES Claremont is more responsible for the X-Men's success and YES Miller is more responsible for Daredevil's. I personally smack my head when fans praise Liefeld for Deadpool.
Don't hurt yourself smacking your head. This example is the most clear cut of the ones you used. Liefeld brought his characters to Marvel and sold them. It was something he had created before working for Marvel. The same way Starlin brought Thanos as the concept to Marvel as something he created before being with Marvel. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 19, 2024 17:41:40 GMT -5
While I think you meant to be rhetorical, I think this question really is the key. The collector community looks for the simplest answer to "when was a character's first appearance?" And fandom extracts authorship from that, but YES Claremont is more responsible for the X-Men's success and YES Miller is more responsible for Daredevil's. I personally smack my head when fans praise Liefeld for Deadpool.
Don't hurt yourself smacking your head. This example is the most clear cut of the ones you used. Liefeld brought his characters to Marvel and sold them. It was something he had created before working for Marvel. The same way Starlin brought Thanos as the concept to Marvel as something he created before being with Marvel. Not to derail this thread, but literally none of what fans like about Deadpool was put there by Liefeld. I'm actually amazed that someone who read those early appearances would argue otherwise. |
|
