-
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
captainnapalm
Member
I think it's clear Kirby was really the ideas engine, which combined with his art, does make his contribution immense, no doubt about it.
But there's also no doubt that Stan Lee gave those books a great deal of flavor, in terms of writing and editing, and he really sort of tied the whole thing together and created 'Marvel' as a universe, and as a company with a certain kind of image and appeal.
I find Lee's assertion that Kirby rejected getting a full-time job with Marvel weird, because it is ultimately their status as freelancers for hire that resulted in the artists really coming off second best in the long run to Stan - who was always part of the company.
The thing is no one knew at the time what these characters would become.
But there's also no doubt that Stan Lee gave those books a great deal of flavor, in terms of writing and editing, and he really sort of tied the whole thing together and created 'Marvel' as a universe, and as a company with a certain kind of image and appeal.
I find Lee's assertion that Kirby rejected getting a full-time job with Marvel weird, because it is ultimately their status as freelancers for hire that resulted in the artists really coming off second best in the long run to Stan - who was always part of the company.
The thing is no one knew at the time what these characters would become.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Jack and Stan didn't always work together, Lee being younger came in and worked for Timely/Atlas for quite some time after Joe and Jack went to work for National /DC for years. Those two were not the best of friends but Lee is probably giving himself too much credit, and Jack giving him too little. Far more than Lee and Kirby made the Marvel Silver Age explode into what it was like Don Heck, Ditko, Bill Everett , Romita Sr, Roy Thomas, Gene Colan, Larry Leiber, Steranko etc etc. Kirby was and always will be the man but he's not Heck, or Everett or Steranko. Very easy to try and narrow everything down to 2 guys and say they did everything but in the end it was many creators and their interactions. Lee may not have been writing everything but he could relate to more people than Jack, even in that interview he said he didnt even really press trying to get to know Ditko because he was a loner at the time. Lee however had a good relationship with him, he was like a scout , a GM of sorts.
Now Kirby most definitely wrote many of the things he drew, but Stan got that all star line up of people to come and work with Marvel at the right place and the right time. Lee was definitely a concept guy , and Jack a story teller and design guy. Joe Simon was the concept guy before he went to work with Lee and they did amazing work for nearly 2 decades before Marvel.
Now Kirby most definitely wrote many of the things he drew, but Stan got that all star line up of people to come and work with Marvel at the right place and the right time. Lee was definitely a concept guy , and Jack a story teller and design guy. Joe Simon was the concept guy before he went to work with Lee and they did amazing work for nearly 2 decades before Marvel.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Except he had already run his own studio prior to this. He was working for Marvel because the comics business had collapsed.
Honestly, I think he's just bitter than Lee a) claimed so much credit and b) did so often on the backs of artists plotting and co-plotting and ghost writers.
I don't think money was the big factor. It was having your asshole* co-worker claim credit for your work.
* subjective of course.
GeordieMark
Member
Reminds me of Jobs and Woz. One had the creative genius, and the other knew exactly how to make money. Sounds like Lee is as ruthless as Jobs was.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think he's more Shatner than Jobs.
This was entirely different than Bob Kane, though (seriously, that guy was THE worst). Stan Lee always, ALWAYS credits his collaborators, never taking credit for things he didn't work on. He never has said "by Stan Lee" at the exclusion of anyone and has never taken credit for characters he didn't create. He was very upfront when someone (wrongly) interviewed him about Guardians of the Galaxy and asked him what it was like to create them, and he very quickly said he didn't.... He only came up with Groot, and his Groot was pretty much just a monster.
I do comics for a living as well, independently with many other artists and writers. Sometimes I'm the artist, sometimes the writer, sometimes the editor. We all create our own characters, but if anyone contributes anything we feel is important or essential to the character, they get credited as well.
Stan Lee, to my knowledge, has always been forthcoming about that. He even openly talks about the fact that he has no ownership of them either; he freely and openly admits he worked as a work-for-hire and Marvel owns them, not him.
I saw him give an interview once where he said, in those old days, nobody knew what would be popular, and even at their peek, his concern was a book just selling enough to keep the lights on at the office. He admits he was pretty shameless trying to get Marvel out there at all costs, whether it be cheap cartoon TV shows, bizarre Japanese Spider-man, toys, lunchboxes, Halloween costumes... whatever he could possibly do to not just make heroes, but make them household names. He was a pretty ruthless business man with an almost unhealthy drive for making comics "big time".
But at no point, ever, did he take credit for things he didn't help create.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Not only that but he was one of the first if not the first to credit and bring letterers , inkers and editors in the credits of issues. Before artists and writers would get the only credits. He would sensationalize every part of the comicbook process and its contributors.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I can think of examples. Silver Surfer, claiming Captain America for a while, and as Ditko puts it, Lee "considers" Ditko to be the co-creator of Spider-Man in a way that really makes it sound like it was all his idea outside of the visuals. And anyone who's read Ditko knows that there's more than a little Ditko in Peter Parker and those early stories. But Stan has always made it out like he wrote them and the artists just drew them.
And yeah, he's no Bob Kane. And Marvel treated jack way, way better than National treated Siegel and Schuster. But Lee took the company line against creators and exaggerated his own importance, two things that earned the ire leveled against him.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
i would like to see the Claiming Capt America part, he was pretty young when that debuted, only input he had was the shield change a few issues in. Maybe he did some later issues after Kirby and Simon left.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
You can only be that mad when people believe lies that make you feel under appreciated and undervalued.
I believe him.
I believe him.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'll have to see if I can find it, but there's Marvel promotional stuff in the 1970s that list Stan Lee as the creator (and nobody else).
...went looking...
Here's a great breakdown which gives both men their due. The example I was thinking of was the Cannon Films poster (in the 80s, not 70s). Given Lee's role at the time, he certainly had a hand in that.
http://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/ff_Lee-Kirby.html
Groot I could see,, But Rocket was money from day one. His series was just so fucking out there, and funny as shit.
Source?
I found this video interview with him talking about Captain America... and the very first thing Stan does is give ALL the credit to Joe Simon and Jack Kirby right out of the gate.
Stan Lee 1990s Interview about Captain America
(I forgot how good this interview is... It's definitely worth watching).
And Silver Surfer was STILL a collaboration between Stan Lee and Kirby. Kirby created a random bald dude and tossed him into the comic without Stan's awareness as a random minion and herald of Galactus, but Stan decided to flesh him out and make him an actual character.
Stan Lee still ultimately was lead writer on the comic, and he has always, ALWAYS claimed Kirby was the one who tossed in Silver Surfer. He came up with the look, then Stan came up with the character. That's usually how many artists and writers collaborate.
Stan Lee took a lot of credit for what Marvel did, and it only seems like he's taking credit just for himself. He was obviously a big part of the company and deserves significant recognition for what the Marvel became.
I've never thought that he was openly trying to steal credit from somebody else, only taking credit for what Marvel achieved. It was never "I did this", it was "Marvel did this". Since he's one of the few surviving members of the original company, he getting twisted around as saying that he's taking all the credit. Stan Lee gets too much criticism for being proud of what Marvel accomplished.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
See link above. It's exhaustive in detail, complete with multiple references to interviews by both and eyewitness accounts.
Machine
Member
Whenever I read stuff about Lee and Kirby, I always flash back to the old X-play skit about Roger, the Stan Lee Experience
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Timing is everything. Lee became far more gracious with age (and becoming less directly tied to Marvel).
I was reading about all this stuff in the 80s and Lee was anything but gracious.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
son of a b....lol
Comes with a lot of bias and bad blood.
Beer Monkey
Member
Spiderman is only 10 to 15 tons
God, I love how the side panel of a subway car can bear the weight of a subway car.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Man, that's gotta suck when it comes from a guy with a beer stein for a head
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think it's worth noting that this interview happened at probably the worst point in the Marvel/Kirby fight, and the interviewer is very anti-Marvel-- and that Stan Lee was very intertwined with Marvel still at this point. As there was litigation including things about who created what with money involved, I'm sure things were asserted in both directions that were exaggerated, wrong, and/or clouded by bitter feelings.
Spiderman has a thin forcefield around his body that helps support the things he lifts and protects his costume.
Imagine if ti came from Imperiex.
I don't think this is necessarily what you're doing here, but it drives me nuts when people look at a work of art, whether that be a comic, movie, painting whatever and it's deeply creative and out there and people just go, "Dude must've been taking a lot of drugs at the time."
That is such a diminishment of incredible acts of creation. Believe me, if all it took to be a Jack Kirby or a Jim Steranko or a Grant Morrison was dropping acid, I would've done it a long, long time ago.
...
Sorry for the tangent. OT, Stan Lee sucks real bad as a creator. His public persona of everybody's silly great uncle Stan who invented comic books is crafted from 100% Grade A bullshit. But Marvel probably never would've been nearly as successful as it was without Stan's gift for bullshit, so there you go. Marvel as we know it never would've happened without both those men going in 100% in their own ways.
kame-sennin
Member
This whole thing is pretty damning as far as Lee's legacy goes. It's clear that Stan Lee re-wrote the dialog - the cheeky hipster dialog sounds exactly the way Stan speaks - Kirby's solo stuff has a different, less comedic feel. But the characters, storylines, and original dialog were clearly done primarily by Jack.
Kirby's predecessor to FF, done for a different company:
Kirby original dialog, written on the page before it was sent to Stan:
Stan adding sexist dialog that totally contradicts Kirby's depiction of a powerful Sue Storm:
Well to be fair, Grant Morrison did do a lot of drugs.
Speaking frankly, and this may seem like an fanboyish defense of Stan Lee, but nothing in that article remotely convinced me of anything.
About the Captain America issue, Stan Lee was crediting Joe Simon and Jack Kirby for Captain America long before Cannon Films had a screw up, and he was crediting them long after. And that's ultimately the thing... the Cannon Film ad was NOT by Marvel directly. It was by Cannon Films, a notoriously low-budget, zero-effort movie company that barely did any research and had a history of lazy efforts. They often pumped out ads like that for upcoming projects even before deals were finalized. I don't believe for one second that Stan Lee (then retired as Marvel's president and serving as just a publisher, but still with the company) mandated that Joe and Simon get excluded and he take sole credit. That's a mistake by Cannon Films (one that, the article fails to show, was corrected by the time the actual awful film came out), but not by Stan Lee.
Similarly, the article complains that you won't see Jack Kirby's name in the credits of The Avengers. But... that was also a promotional mistake. Jack Kirby's name is in the credits and the the article's info is outdated.
And Stan Lee gets a credit because he's the executive producer and usually IN THE FILMS, so of course he gets a credit.
Even then, when talking about the initial lack of Kirby's co-creator credit, Stan Lee openly said, "You're talking to the wrong guy. I have nothing to do with the credits on the movies."
Does that make everything right? Of course not. Joe Kirby deserves a credit, and he's been omitted from credit in certain promotional material before. But that's not because mean old Stan Lee was seeking to bury his legacy. That's some poor advertising guy not doing his job correctly.
If you like, as well, I have found quotes from every single writer complaining about Stan Lee's contributions (some of the quotes I noticed were out of context) at various times having many moments of praising his contributions and crediting his writing and involvement.
Even a statement like "Did I say Stanley had no smarts? Well, he DID come up with two sure fire ideas… the first one was “Why not let the artists WRITE the stories as well as draw them?”… And the second was … ALWAYS SIGN YOUR NAME ON TOP …BIG”... can be contradicted by the fact that one of Stan Lee's rules was to ensure his co-creators always had their names as big as his name was.
Lastly, I'll say that I do comics as a living as well. Funny, I never really looked into the "Marvel Method", but I'm actually shocked that Stan Lee's method of writing comics is almost IDENTICAL to how I and my collaborators handle comics.
Here's how we do it: say I come up with a story idea. I make a vague template, involving characters, villains, and plotlines. I send it to the artist. Taking my story template, he does the artwork and sends it back to me. I then take the artwork and do dialogue and flesh out the narrative based on what I'm seeing.
Based on that article, I would be accused of being a "lazy writer" or "taking credit for the artist's contributions". That's just not how it works, because it's a collaboration. We both get credit and we both build from nothing into something. Of course my artists get good ideas (and when I'm the artist, I do as well), and often we put things in the stories the writer didn't expect, and the writers roll with it and work with it. Artists love coming up with new ideas too. It's fun and how collaboration works.
So, yes, I disagree with your source link. Or more precisely, I disagree with the conclusions formed based on what was presented to me. Thank you for finding it, but know that I disagree.
Was Stan Lee a saint? No, he's human. We all are. Even in my comic job, i've lost my temper, let egos get the better of me, argued over "who did what" and tried to inject my ideas into stories that honestly had no business with me butting in... but that's part of any collaborative work with co-workers and teams. It's not all smooth sailing, and when everyone is on the same page, magic happens.
It's ridiculous to claim Stan Lee is an awful person, or that he seeks to take credit from other creators. He's never made a habit of that, and his actions side far more on his desire to acknowledge those that helped make comics. If I remember correctly, he was even one of the ones at Marvel that STARTED crediting people other than artists and writers, like inkers, editors, letterers, etc.
Honestly, Stan Lee benefited from also being a supremely charismatic, articulate, passionate, extroverted man who, unlike almost any other creator at the time, proudly stood in the spotlight and engaged his fans on a creator-to-fan level. He was smart and savvy enough to be the "Walt Disney face" of Marvel when nobody else was willing and, like Walt, was accused of using his popularity to overshadow other creators.
But that's not really Stan Lee's fault nor his intent. The same article you referenced has a granddaughter of Joe Simon lamenting the fact that many people believe Stan Lee created Captain America... but that's the same as someone believing that Shigeru Miyamoto created Metroid or that Walt Disney created Scrooge McDuck. Someone's ignorance isn't always the more popular guy's fault.
Well, this turned rantier than I anticipated. Apologies if you read this far. As a comic creator myself, trust me, I'm the first to bristle at injustice against creators and the greedy and selfishness of some publishers, but I've never really bought the narrative that Stan Lee was one of the bad ones. Creative differences? Sure, but never spite or hate or creative theft.
He 100% did, but A) The drugs he was taking do not magically turn other people into creative dynamos and B) His stories were fucking weird as shit before he started doing drugs too.
So, I kinda feel like we should be giving credit where credit is due. Grant is a genius of comic books who has done hard drugs. Grant is not a genius of comic books because he did hard drugs.
Why so serious?
CastorTroy
Member
Makes no sense. Stan had writing credits on alot of different books that had completely different artists working on them, aside from Kirby. The art would change, but the dialogue and story style would remain consistent throughout.
Simply Sarah
Member
Well, I'm not sure I'd call it damning. I do feel Lee gets more credit than he deserves, but it's also clear he did have a large hand in shaping Silver Age Marvel. It's just that much of what he did was heavily from the position of editor (and doing dialogue) rather than being a super strong creative guy.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Pretty sure that's impossible, dude would die from self-immolation first
Like his hand would start to make an L shape then he'd just burst into flames due to the intense embarrassment of pretending someone else was a big loser then impy
Another thing about Stan Lee is he openly admits he takes inspiration from others and then puts his own spin on things. That's not a detriment against Stan Lee.
The Hulk was just Frankenstein's monster in modern day.
Fantastic Four as a team book only existed because they saw DC succeed with Justice League.
Thor is... just the Norse god Thor.
X-men was just an answer to DC's Doom Patrol.
I think I even read one where Stan Lee says "Daredevil was just another Spider-man... only this time he's blind!"
The Hulk was just Frankenstein's monster in modern day.
Fantastic Four as a team book only existed because they saw DC succeed with Justice League.
Thor is... just the Norse god Thor.
X-men was just an answer to DC's Doom Patrol.
I think I even read one where Stan Lee says "Daredevil was just another Spider-man... only this time he's blind!"
Wait, Doom Patrol came first? I always thought they were knock off X-Men, not the other way around....*consults with Dr. Internet* Shit, yeah first appearance of Doom Patrol is June of 63 and first appearance of X-Men is September of 63. Well, whatdaya know. You learn something new every day.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I wasn't talking about the Avengers movie thing at all, I'm sure Stan was out of the loop on that.
However, as Marvel Publisher, much of his efforts were to get Marvel movies made. I don't doubt for a second that his name on that Cannon poster was his own doing.
I pointed to that article specifically in a request to find where Lee was credited.
And yes, you come off as fanboyishly defending Lee. When Lee talked about writing Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, he always downplayed the artist's contributions to the story. It's a pattern, and it's no accident so many artists (mainly Ditko and Kirby) are bitter about it.
Also, your example of using the Marvel Method doesn't match what was happening much of the time, as that article points out. Kirby (and others) would take a germ of an idea and make their own story. It's clear Jack was basically writing FF for most of the run.
Skip the movie stuff in that article and look at the detailed discussions of the plotting, drawing and scripting process. It's clear that Lee had a highly variable level of contribution, sometimes near none but dialogue (and according to sources elsewhere, even that was often done by Roy Thomas and other assistants).
However, as Marvel Publisher, much of his efforts were to get Marvel movies made. I don't doubt for a second that his name on that Cannon poster was his own doing.
I pointed to that article specifically in a request to find where Lee was credited.
And yes, you come off as fanboyishly defending Lee. When Lee talked about writing Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, he always downplayed the artist's contributions to the story. It's a pattern, and it's no accident so many artists (mainly Ditko and Kirby) are bitter about it.
Also, your example of using the Marvel Method doesn't match what was happening much of the time, as that article points out. Kirby (and others) would take a germ of an idea and make their own story. It's clear Jack was basically writing FF for most of the run.
Skip the movie stuff in that article and look at the detailed discussions of the plotting, drawing and scripting process. It's clear that Lee had a highly variable level of contribution, sometimes near none but dialogue (and according to sources elsewhere, even that was often done by Roy Thomas and other assistants).
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
They were co-incidental, basically. I've seen some details that show that both were underway before Doom Patrol came out.
DP is essentially a funhouse mirror Fantastic Four though. People never mention that, but if you read those comics, they are far, far more similar to FF than X-Men.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Dialogue yes, story style not at all.
FF stories and Spider-Man stories are way, way different.
kame-sennin
Member
It seems like he was a promoter and a guy who made the dialog punchier. That's definitely an important creative achievement because it gives the characters a lot of charm. But it's a looooooong way from the 'father of the Marvel Universe' image that's been created. It looks like Kirby (and Ditko) was the father of the Marvel Universe and Stan was the sleazy uncle who taught his nephew how to get laid.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Pretending that half of that Stan Lee stuff is as good as his best solo work is hilarious. I mean really, New Gods wasn't as good as Fantastic Four but compared to fucking Ant Man or Adam Warlock? For real? There's no need to belittle his post Marvel stuff just because you're trying to make a point.
Also you conveniently left off the fact that he invented Captain America without Lee.
Well he did say solo, Cap was co-created with Joe Simon.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
X-Men under Lee/Kirby was nothing too impressive, either. It only got big/good much, much later.
Also, New Gods didn't bomb so much as DC cancelled it after expecting it to be much bigger. It's fair to say that there were people in DC who weren't really giving Jack a shot.
Also, I'm not personally a fan but Kamandi deserves more respect that that. It ran a good long while and is well-loved by a lot of people. And it was very contemporary sci-fi at the time, not 50s.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
I know. It was split into two groups as to conveniently leave Cap out.
Also, how many characters did Stan Lee create solo? Zero, because he can't draw.
This is basically what happens when a lot of creative minds come together, egos clash, ideas blur, feelings get corrupted and people have their ideals change.
Well, they definitely feel like "DC does comics Marvel style" no matter who they were ripping off, lol. But yeah, I can see what you mean. There's just so many similarities between DP and X-Men. The wheelchaired mastermind behind the teams, they both have a Danger Room like dealio. Didn't they both proclaim themselves to basically be "The Strangest Comic Book Characters, Ever!!!!"? It's always crazy when those parallels happen. I always wonder how much of it is creators talking together and inspiring each other, how much of it is blatant rip-offs and how much of it is pure chance.
Normally I'd assume this is a joke, but since Slayven is saying it... is this true?
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Avengers wasn't very good until Roy Thomas and John Buscema started doing it too.
Kirby also added a shitload of stuff to the Superman mythos. Dan Turpin, Morgan Edge, Cadmus, Intergang, etc. All of this is still used in Superman comics today from a guy who wrote 15 issues of Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen. He was offered the main Superman book but he didn't want to put the people who were currently writing it out of work so he asked to be put on the lowest selling comic DC had. Who knows how it would have turned out if he was writing Superman or Action Comics.
- Status