I think you just argued my point for me?

And Walt Disney is still singlehandedly making films in 2024. I saw his name at the beginning.

Everyone might not get this analogy but I just watched a video on youtube about what was better Zelda: Breath of the Wild (BotW in 2017) or Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (TotK in 2023). And every argument the content creator of the video pointed out in all five categories that he presented as evidence (technical, story, combat, world design and progression) was that TotK did everything BotW did better. Without BotW, TotK wouldn't exist to be as good as it supposedly is. To him at least. So, per your analogy, I would say BotW is the "initial concept". Which is what Nintendo started from in adding "ingredients", the differences in TotK from BotW to make it a "better" game. But in the end TotK is the game so many people like over BotW that it doesn't matter to the enjoyment of the person playing the game.

So to me Kirby being the concept man and Lee fleshing out stories and characters as long as we get a good end product, to me it doesn't matter. You can argue that without the concept something can't be expanded on. But if you also don't have someone to smooth said concept out than the product may not be as good or functional. In the end, I will agree most times, being the concept person is a thankless job. When you see an amazing looking house that blows your mind. Or you go to St.Louis or NYC and see the Arch or Empire State building what wow's you? The mere sight of it and imagine how it was actually built and all the possible people involved. When you see those old pictures of dudes eating their lunches on hanging beams? But how often do we think of the amazing minds that design it; the architect?

So I think of Kirby as the architect and Lee the labors that made that planning of the architect a reality. And in my younger years when I was trying to write my own fiction one of the hardest things was doing the writing itself. I could come up with so many concepts and stories and scenarios but it was much harder to put them into words and then put them on paper. It's not an easy tasks. You have to have a well versed vocabulary. And know how to use it. While I am not a fan of the use of the dramatic speak Lee made in his Silver Surfer series it still amazes me that he pulled it off. It made that series like a superhero soap opera. Then there was his old Norse in Thor. All difficult tasks. Again though he would not have done that without Kirby's concepts. Both made it happen. To me it doesn't matter to me who did "more". To me the end product is what shines and at the same time showcases the talents of both men equally.

Not so fast skippy, Whatever a character morphs into, the person with the first concept and idea is the creator. 

I agree with Kurt that we probably can't know everything, and that the truth may contain parts of conflicting accounts rather than just one version. Also, I know there are plenty of limitations to my knowledge of the subject.

I think there is a solid basis to say that Kirby and Ditko made big contributions to plotting and character creation and that Lee minimized those contributions (probably both intentionally and unintentionally). My understanding is that Marvel stories in the Silver Age did a lot better job of including credits in the comics than many contemporaries. On the other hand, when I see someone credited as a writer, that implies the plotting unless otherwise specified. So I think the very act of writer/penciler credits that didn't give plotting credits to Kirby and Ditko is deceptive. Also, the marginal notes other have mentioned support claims of Kirby & Ditko as significant contributors to the writing. Lee himself, even when the claimed that he would act out plots in story conferences, also acknowledged that sometimes he would just give a one sentence description. So even in the light most favorable to Lee, one hasn't to conceded that there were whole issues where the artist basically plotted everything himself.

On the other hand, I like the Marvel work that was credited to Lee/Kirby or Lee/Ditko (and also things like Lee/Colan on Daredevil) generally more than the work of Kirby and Ditko without Lee that I'm unwilling to discount Lee's contributions completely. I prefer Lee's scripts to Kirby's. Yes, Lee could write some corny and over-the-top stuff. But I think, for example, he did a good job on Spider-Man, whereas it took me a few tries to power through New Gods because I found Kirby's scripts to be a barrier.

Also, I'm one of those readers who actually prefers the Lee/Romita Spider-Man to the Ditko/Lee Spider-Man. On the other hand, I think the difference in character creation between the two eras underlines how important Ditko was. The creation of characters for Spidey's rogues gallery was so prolific during Ditko's time on the series. Then, when Romita takes over, there are so significant new adversaries. The Kingpin is obviously a major one. Beyond that is the Rhino, I think the Prowler, the Shocker . . . uh, the Kangaroo. Am I missing anyone major? That does not speak well of Lee's abilities to generate new villains on his own, although theoretically Spidey had plenty at that point.

Agreed, and its an observation i've offered in the past about judging the post-Lee work of Kirby and Ditko to get a very clear look at who was responsible for the formulas, nuance and heart found in the artists' work while at Marvel. Process of elimination: no Lee, and Kirby and Ditko's Marvel work--the unquestioned height of their respective careers--does not exist in the way we know. There's no erasing or minimizing Lee's contribution and impact on Kirby and Ditko's tenure at Marvel, unless anyone would say their post-Marvel work was just as creative, innovative and impactful on readers.



Being a creative captain---making key and final decisions is how individual elements find strength, cohesion and purpose; if Lee was the one who gave Ben Grimm his self-loathing personality, then he was indeed a co-creator of the character the public would know, and thus he played a significant role in its success--deservedly so.




Agreed.




Same here, but the decades have played witness to quite overblown, pro-Kirby-did-it-largely-by-himself stories.





Very key information; the fact Lee had so many rejected Kirby pages and guided the kind of stories written is the kind of information which shatters the anti-Lee narrative. Shooter--as opposed to fan/writers with agendas--would know, and his word should not be dismissed on so specific a topic.




Quite true, and as mentioned earlier, one can clearly see where Lee's storytelling leaning / strengths were, which continued after Ditko left, while certain, shall we call them "Ditko-isms" vanished almost overnight once the Romita/Lee era began. Process of elimination in the other direction this time.



Romita did start uncredited co-plotting early on in his run on The Amazing Spider-Man, but he was certainly the co-pilot on that journey. TASM--once Ditko left the title--took on a far more dramatic turn for characters, because they were maturing realistically, rather than being akin to 1940s youth / cops 'n' robbers archetypes / stereotypes common to Ditko's storytelling. The then-rapidly rising popularity of Spider-Man (and sales to become Marvel's top seller over F.F. in 1966) after Ditko's departure is a bitter pill of historical fact about the extent Ditko's influence had on Spider-Man's ever-growing status as major IP for Marvel, as the character only continued to reach new heights under Lee/Romita (including licensing) than anything ever imagined while Ditko was an influence.

Lee gave Ditko credits for plotting their collaborations on Doctor Strange and Amazing Spider-Man starting in 1965, I think.  Did any credits ever acknowledge input into plotting from Kirby on any of his collaborations with Lee?