GasparZizou
Super Freak
How can you not love that guy
Easily when you realize how badly he and Marvel ****ed over Jack Kirby.
I just think you can feel one is undervalued without having to villify the other.
View attachment 110707
I didn't realize this was an actual skull. Apparently this is the head of a Celestial that other creatures found and turned into a spaceport. Looks like it's this place.
Of course it wasn't all Stan's fault, because there were legal rights issues, and monetary concerns Marvel wanted to protect that fed into all this. But prior to his leaving Marvel was clearly giving the creative credit to Lee, which was one of Kirby's main reasons for leaving (along with other contractual issues that didn't have anything to do with the base yearly salary). Yes, Lee has given some token credit to Kirby over the years, something that has actually happened more often in recent years, whether it be out of guilt or legal concerns, or trying to salvage his own reputation, or whatever. If Lee would have defended Kirby's role more staunchly in the '60s, when he certainly had the ability to do so, then we wouldn't have this skewed legacy. Primarily corporate Marvel is at fault, but Lee wasn't an innocent bystander. He capitalized on the myth that Lee was the primary party responsible for the creation of Marvel.Hmm, maybe he shouldn't have left Marvel at the height of his popularity. You know that period of time where people claim Marvel wasn't paying him any money, but actual tax records show he was making what top surgeons in the US were making...much more than any other talent at the time. The equivalent of people in 2050 whining about RDJ not being paid enough because of his contribution to building the MCU. Again, his contributions are legendary in the industry, but blaming all his problems on Stan is just...
I just think you can feel one is undervalued without having to villify the other.
Agreed. The lack of things like this is the problem.Let's have more retrospectives on Kirby though. Lee might have been a genius in his own way, but Kirby was the mega talent and ought to get more attention.
Kirby definitely came out on the losing end of this but there is so much we aren't privy to. We don't know the nature of the split and any animosity incurred on either side. Not that it justifies not doing whats right but you are dealing with creative people who tend to be emotional and sometimes vindictive.Of course it wasn't all Stan's fault, because there were legal rights issues, and monetary concerns Marvel wanted to protect that fed into all this. But prior to his leaving Marvel was clearly giving the creative credit to Lee, which was one of Kirby's main reasons for leaving (along with other contractual issues that didn't have anything to do with the base yearly salary). Yes, Lee has given some token credit to Kirby over the years, something that has actually happened more often in recent years, whether it be out of guilt or legal concerns, or trying to salvage his own reputation, or whatever. If Lee would have defended Kirby's role more staunchly in the '60s, when he certainly had the ability to do so, then we wouldn't have this skewed legacy. Primarily corporate Marvel is at fault, but Lee wasn't an innocent bystander. He capitalized on the myth that Lee was the primary party responsible for the creation of Marvel.
Google it and you can find out different perspectives. From all I've seen, I feel that Marvel screwed Kirby over, and Lee was complicit in it, as it meant he got more credit, money, and fame by doing so. Kirby gets nowhere near the credit he deserves for his role in helping to forge the vast majority of Marvel's current A-list of characters (essentially everyone except Spider-Man). Same goes for Steve Ditko. Lee deserves lots of credit, but not as much as he's gotten relative to those others. He also had a debatable amount of input into the actual storytelling components of lots of those comics.
Enter your email address to join: