-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
According to Jack Kirby, Stan Lee was an uncreative hack (1990 Interview)
- Thread starter VARIA
- Start date
- Status
Palette Swap
Member
Yeah, shocking news lol.
We love seeing this guy everywhere but it doesn't cross my mind that he's ever been a worthwhile creative.
Meanwhile, Kirby later made some of the best comics ever.
We love seeing this guy everywhere but it doesn't cross my mind that he's ever been a worthwhile creative.
Meanwhile, Kirby later made some of the best comics ever.
LOL, Okay. Sure, whatever you say buddy.
I agree with him, Buddy.
Tizoc
Member
Anyone who says Thanos is superior to Darkseid is so so wrong.
You don't deserve your avatar....
OMAC is fantastic, but was cut short due to DC cutting down on its published titles, and just ended abruptly.
You don't deserve your avatar....
OMAC is fantastic, but was cut short due to DC cutting down on its published titles, and just ended abruptly.
Different strokes for different folks.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Wow, lots of mud slung there.
Also TIL bob Kane wasn't pleasent as a person.
Good morning GAF
Also TIL bob Kane wasn't pleasent as a person.
Good morning GAF
My favorite
Read this issue the other day. In about two pages Johhny goes from wondering whatever happened to the Sub-Mariner to shaving this random bum.
Huh?
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Thanos has most certainly had better stories over a longer and more consistent period than Darkseid, it's damn near indisputable. Darkseid has been king goober for decades.
Amusingly enough, another example of a person who credited himself with tons of things that he never actually contributed to.
My favorite
oh wow, always wondered why William Leather shaving in Planetary looked so familiar
not_so_special
Banned
this happens a lot,steve jobs in another example
Sir_Crocodile
Member
What does an L in front of their head signify???
Yeah none of what Kirby says in this interview matches the actual timeline very well. When you read the comics it's pretty obvious Lee's writing them. He has a certain inimitable style.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
JasonUresti
Member
Lee was scripting dialog, but Kirby and Ditko were doing most if not all the plotting. In the better times in their relationship they would come up with an idea together, Kirby or Ditko would go and plot it out and draw the story, and then Lee would fill in dialog and captions, make edits and request changes. In the bad times, like when Ditko stopped communicating with Stan, Ditko would plot and draw everything without Stans input and turn his pages in, and Lee would then read it and fit in his stuff where he could. Its painfully obvious in some of those later Lee/Ditko issues, as Ditko is telling the story without any thought to or need of Lee's scripting and Lee is left writing captions that are just describing what Ditko is drawing.
I don't know how much I believe anything that Jack Kirby said in the 90's, there was a point he was saying that he created Spider-Man but Stan Lee gave it to Ditko because the drawing Ditko did for a super-hero was better. I'll look for it.
Here's a good Bob Kane story (read from bottom up, fucking Twitter)
Here's a good Bob Kane story (read from bottom up, fucking Twitter)
Tizoc
Member
I don't know how much I believe anything that Jack Kirby said in the 90's, there was a point he was saying that he created Spider-Man but Stan Lee gave it to Ditko because the drawing Ditko did for a super-hero was better. I'll look for it.
Here's a good Bob Kane story
Text isn't very clear could you provide a bigger ver. please?
I don't know how much I believe anything that Jack Kirby said in the 90's, there was a point he was saying that he created Spider-Man but Stan Lee gave it to Ditko because the drawing Ditko did for a super-hero was better. I'll look for it.
Here's a good Bob Kane story (read from bottom up, fucking Twitter)
Legend.
captainnapalm
Member
The problem with this version of events is that Stan Lee has extremely recognizable dialogue and writing style. That stretches across the books Kirby wasn't involved with. It seems pretty clear he was writing. Unless there's some unknown ghost writer behind the scenes. It wasn't Kirby.
Interfectum
Gold Member
That is a whole other can of worms that could be its own thread. Here are the comments from Ditko on the subject, where he pretty much says "I have no idea what the fuck was going on with Lee and Kirby, but here is what I did."
He's a very personable and cool dude. He seems to have mellowed out a lot with age as well, so Stan as we know him today isn't the same Stan that Kirby knew in the prime of their careers.
But yeah, he told Kevin Smith once that a lot of Marvel characters have alliterative names so he could remember them easier (Bruce Banner, Sue Storm, Peter Parker, and so on). That says something about the depth and nature of his creative input right there.
And his post-prime Marvel output has been pretty bad, so I definitely believe he wasn't the major main force behind the most iconic of Marvel's stable.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Yes, it was all Kirby. Which is why everything he got credited for writing and creating is absolute shit. Yes, even the New Gods.
Mighty Chin
Banned
I also agree buddy.
The quote of a generation tbh. At least all those Stan Lee cameos are going to be awesome for the inevitable documentaries about super drama
Calamari41
41 > 38
Damn, this was brutal.
I always knew the general story that Jack Kirby was way more important than Stan Lee, but I had no idea that it went to this extent.
I always knew the general story that Jack Kirby was way more important than Stan Lee, but I had no idea that it went to this extent.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I suspect the truth is that two talented, but egotistical, personalities worked miracles together for a while and then split under bad terms. From there on, it was "I did all this" and "No, I did all this." When the truth was very likely that they both did things together. I doubt either one of them would have been successful without the other. Kirby was king of the pencil, but Stan's dialogue is very much his and very much part of how the characters came to be known. I don't believe that Kirby came up with all of the dialogue and names for everybody, as he started to claim after they broke up. Stan was also very likely a dickhole during his heyday, as well.
Either way, they're both legends and the comic world already misses Kirby and it'll miss Stan when he's gone too.
Either way, they're both legends and the comic world already misses Kirby and it'll miss Stan when he's gone too.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Yeah-doi
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I clicked on this wondering if it was the Comics Journal interview I read ages ago, and it was.
Interestingly, the Journal later did a really great piece comparing Lee/Kirby stories to just Kirby stories, to see if all Lee did was the dialogue. They concluded that no, they must have both had input, since the Kirby solo stuff often refutes or counters some of the themes of the Lee/Kirby stuff.
There are some stories that flesh out the Marvel Method a lot more-- it seems like often there was a planning session with both of them (or Lee/Ditko, or whomever), then the artist would go off and draw the story, and then the writer would dialogue it. In the case of Lee/Kirby, it seems Kirby would often go off on big tangents that weren't in the plotting session and Lee would get the pages back and not know what was going on. Silver Surfer, famously and supposedly, was not in the plotting session for the first Galactus story. Kirby envisioned him as completely alien, which he was-- but when Lee later wrote him, he had a quite humanistic background.
I think it's also well-know that Lee would have a lot of people ghost-write the dialogue for him over time, so that he wasn't really involved past the plotting. Roy Thomas is said to have started as Lee's ghost writer on a lot of stuff. Which is probably why Kirby made such nasty fun of him in his parody in Mister Miracle.
Interestingly, the Journal later did a really great piece comparing Lee/Kirby stories to just Kirby stories, to see if all Lee did was the dialogue. They concluded that no, they must have both had input, since the Kirby solo stuff often refutes or counters some of the themes of the Lee/Kirby stuff.
There are some stories that flesh out the Marvel Method a lot more-- it seems like often there was a planning session with both of them (or Lee/Ditko, or whomever), then the artist would go off and draw the story, and then the writer would dialogue it. In the case of Lee/Kirby, it seems Kirby would often go off on big tangents that weren't in the plotting session and Lee would get the pages back and not know what was going on. Silver Surfer, famously and supposedly, was not in the plotting session for the first Galactus story. Kirby envisioned him as completely alien, which he was-- but when Lee later wrote him, he had a quite humanistic background.
I think it's also well-know that Lee would have a lot of people ghost-write the dialogue for him over time, so that he wasn't really involved past the plotting. Roy Thomas is said to have started as Lee's ghost writer on a lot of stuff. Which is probably why Kirby made such nasty fun of him in his parody in Mister Miracle.
They didn't fuck around back then.
You are Loser Supreme for that universe
I never heard Stan Lee speak bad about anyone. And I sure he knows where a lot of bodies are buried.
Beer Monkey
Member
This is why I've hated Stan Lee for decades.
This is how I've always felt. The comic industry was the wild west in terms of artists / writers vs. DC / Marvel. In the end, there are endless stories about who deserves what credit.
Kirby seemed to have become a crazed introvert, where Lee could handle an extroverted personality as editor and spokesman. Kirby always seemed to receive his credit when due, but just couldn't get past Lee's popularity with the Marvel publications.
Yeah, if you've read anything about the early days of Marvel or Jack Kirby (I'd recommend Tales to Astonish, though Marvel: The Untold Story also has some good stuff), this is well-documented.
I won't defend Marvel or Stan's treatment of Jack, but I won't demonize Stan to the point that I'd say he's a talentless hack. Stan's marketing skills were and, to some extent, still are ridiculous. He was also an EXTREMELY accomplished editor, one of the best to ever work in publishing. Just think about how many books he was credited with writing (even if he was just a creative consultant, this is still a crazy amount of work), while still wining and dining Hollywood execs trying to get a Marvel film universe going, something that's only now being realized. Dude is straight-up brilliant, and there's no way Marvel would be where it is today without him, straight up.
Did he take way too much credit? Yes, of course. Did he treat his artists/writers badly, including Jack Kirby? Oh yeah. But he wasn't some lucky schmoozer who lucked into everything he's achieved. Dude worked HARD.
Now Bob Kane, fuck that guy.
I won't defend Marvel or Stan's treatment of Jack, but I won't demonize Stan to the point that I'd say he's a talentless hack. Stan's marketing skills were and, to some extent, still are ridiculous. He was also an EXTREMELY accomplished editor, one of the best to ever work in publishing. Just think about how many books he was credited with writing (even if he was just a creative consultant, this is still a crazy amount of work), while still wining and dining Hollywood execs trying to get a Marvel film universe going, something that's only now being realized. Dude is straight-up brilliant, and there's no way Marvel would be where it is today without him, straight up.
Did he take way too much credit? Yes, of course. Did he treat his artists/writers badly, including Jack Kirby? Oh yeah. But he wasn't some lucky schmoozer who lucked into everything he's achieved. Dude worked HARD.
Now Bob Kane, fuck that guy.
Because a bitter old man said some crazy shit?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
All of this, especially the book recommendation.
And for what it's worth, all the News Gods bashing really does highlight one thing-- Kirby needed an editor. I loved a lot of stuff *about* the New Gods, but the stories are rough and the dialogue terrible. But I am sure after having Lee over-claim credit on so much of his stuff, Kirby wanted to self-edit so that wouldn't happen again.
I still think the New Gods could be a great ongoing, if given to somebody with the right skills. Look what various writers at Marvel have made out of fricking Groot and Rocket Raccoon.
If you read more about this, you can narrow in pretty clearly to what really went down, and Lee is still pretty hateable even after he's given due creative credit.
The history of the comic book industry isn't pretty, and it's not just Marvel. That road is littered with disgruntled creators, and now that there's significant money involved, the creative rights are fought over even more.
It's understandable, but what the industry was at the time has to be taken into consideration. Writers and artists were considered employees and that's just how comic companies were run. Quite often it was a collaboration over a lot of different titles involving multiple writers, artists and editors. It was a company of many, not individuals. But now, fighting over who owns what and who created what has just led to a lot of bad blood.
That's the reality of the history. Unfortunate, but that's the way it was. For the most part they've sorted it out and creators are getting the proper credit now, but the bad blood doesn't heal. Creating villains within the industry is the unfortunate aftermath.
It's understandable, but what the industry was at the time has to be taken into consideration. Writers and artists were considered employees and that's just how comic companies were run. Quite often it was a collaboration over a lot of different titles involving multiple writers, artists and editors. It was a company of many, not individuals. But now, fighting over who owns what and who created what has just led to a lot of bad blood.
That's the reality of the history. Unfortunate, but that's the way it was. For the most part they've sorted it out and creators are getting the proper credit now, but the bad blood doesn't heal. Creating villains within the industry is the unfortunate aftermath.
I've read the untold stories book. Nothing in it made Stan look horrible. Self centered, and fame chasing maybe, but not a total dick bag like Kriby would have you believe.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I don't think he's close to as bad as Kirby asserts, but I've read plenty that make me think I'd have hated working with him.
Dude claimed credit for Captain America once, for Christ's sake.
See, I think that this overselling the original depictions of the character. Sometimes subsequent writers take a mediocre character and make it amazing. That doesn't retroactively make the original design amazing.
Sure there's some bad blood and bad history, but grabbing a few quotes to sum up the guy doesn't tell the whole story of the industry at the time. Comic fans making Stan Lee a villain does get out of hand.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
What I meant was that if you can make lame characters like Groot and Rocket good, imagine what you can do with a good foundation *and* good writers.
Not all Fourth World characters are great, of course, but many of them are. And the original premise was great.
Palette Swap
Member
This is true.
There's an alternate universe where Claremont never exhumed that weird looking Wolverine D-lister.
Warm Machine
Member
Kirby sounds to me like an artist who only realized he should have been on the business end of things way too late. I know the feeling. Being an artist is a terrible way to make money and own creations, at least in the capacity he was working.
- Status