• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About bluechip

  • Boards Title
    FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Timely books got smaller in the later years of the war
  2. I was aware of that. Although I can't say I know whether Kirby changed his name to sound less Jewish or just because it rolled more easily off the tongue. I was commenting on how people use the original name of a person when they want to show disrespect. It seems to be so when a person refers in one sentence to several people who changed their names, and only use the original name of the person to whom they want to show disrepect.
  3. Yes, Stan Lee's birth name was Lieber. He Americanized his name. It's something people were, sadly, encouraged to do not so long ago. And perhaps not living during those times you think less of him for doing so. ... But, wait! So did Kirby (born Jacob Kurtzber I am generally curious when people use the names of Jewish writers/artists. Sometimes it's a fellow Jew wanting to reclaim their heritage. But then I see examples -- often -- where a person's birth name is used in a piece that is largely about how they don't like that person. I can't say that's a certain correlation. But when somebody references two Jewish men who changed their names, and uses the birth name of one, and not the other. And when it's clear that they use the Americanized name of the one they like, and the birth name of the one they don't like... I am not sure where that's coming from.
  4. Full disclosure might mean describing it thusly: "One of a kind at this point in time. No guarantees about tomorrow (or a half hour from now)."
  5. You come from the place of wanting to support Kirby and be extension you see it as part of that support to slam Lee. I do not have the time to engage on every point but you reference ALL the quotes so many times I can't help but notice and reply that there is no way the "stuff said" mag or any magazine or book has ALL the things every person said on these issues. Even if you wanted to amass them all you couldn't. You would see only a portion of the quotes which were chosen and arranged by writers and editors for past articles and books about the issues. Stan didn't and never did OWN any of the characters. At one point he was able to negotiate a percentage but was never paid it. He settled for 10 million (and I imagine lawyers took a third to 40 percent of that). He also got them to agree to a mil a year salary which was apparently worth it to Marvel to have him as a happy figurehead and booster. Kirby did not get anything like that while he was alive but his family sued to claim OWNERSHIP (not just a percentage) and they, like Stan, settled for millions. The exact amount has not been revealed but it's thought by those with reason to know that the amount is likely equal or greater than the 10 mil lump sum Stan got. The testimony in court was never about Lee establishing ownership. He was summoned to testify by Marvel, which was establishing their ownership. If Lee had disputed in court their ownership, in contradiction to the raft of legal papers they had with him, Marvel and Disney's legal armada would have rained helllfire on him. Goodman and his assigns that took over Marvel got people like Jack to sign off on papers that said their work was done for hire. The particulars were sloppy in retrospect and it can easily be argued that all the creatives, including Lee, were pressured (and got screwed) to some extent. Stan died with the kind of money a guy can make by writing and/or directing a single hit TV show or movie. Not like a guy who was integral to a business worth tens or even hundreds of billions.
  6. Your sentence made it sound like you were relying on that one statement. I have heard the "he saids" which I understand make up most of the "stuff said" book you reference. Even exact quotes can be misleading when the writer starts with an agenda and has control over which quotes get in and which do not -- especially when most of the people involved have either contradicted themselves or indulged in accusations and assertions that stretch the limits of logic. I could easily assemble a piece, using only substantiated quotes, that would make Kirby look like an angel and Stan the devil, then use different substantiated quotes to create a piece with just the opposite conclusion. Kirby's most off-the-rails remarks are likely due to the fact he never got over the Herald-Tribune article and I think never believed that Stan hadn't played a part in his portrayal, even though the writer was apparently in the room with both men for the whole session/interview. Ditko asserted that Spider-man didn't truly exist, even as a concept, until he drew the costume (and yet the costume he drew was remarkably similar to a kids' halloween costume that existed for eight years before AF15). Everybody has good points and everybody has stretched their points, sometimes to the breaking point. One thing that people keep forgetting is that the very first person who said "Jack is practically the writer" was Stan himself, and he said it repeatedly and for a long time before anyone else was saying it (including Jack). Stan made more than Kirby or Ditko ever made but he didn't make nearly as much he could have, nor nearly so much as many others who were far more peripheral in the exploitation of Marvel's assets (because they were better businesspeople).
  7. This sequence contains one of Marvel's legendary mistakes. After Cap says "...only one of is gonna walk out of here..." in the next panel he says "And it won't be me!"
  8. I don't think people are jumping on Stan because of "THAT" one statement. If so, then wouldn't the same people jump on Kirby for his most absurd assertions, like the time he was quoted saying Stan didn't even know how to write, had no knowledge of history and didn't even read books. (I don't have the exact quotes handy but that is pretty close to what Kirby said in a totally off-the-rails moment). Kirby even insisted he really created Spider-man, which has put some Stan-haters in the position of embracing the contradiction that both Ditko and Kirby are correct in asserting that Stan stole their credit but innocent in stealing credit from each other. There's similar contradiction in the arguments regarding Kane, Finger and Robinson re the creation of the Joker. Haters will tell you Kane claimed improperly stole credit owed to Finger and that Kane claimed credit due to Robinson, but they don't see the contradiction and won't acknowledge you can't credit both Robinson and Finger with 100% credit, which is not possible. I've seen lots of claims that Kane lied about Finger and lied about Robinson, but as yet I've seen nobody claim that Robinson lied about Finger's role (or vice versa). They're so focused on implicating Kane that they don't even see or acknowledge that Finger and Robinson were not just calling Kane a thief; they were also disputing each other.
  9. They were redoing stories all the time. FF51 is arguably the best of these Marvel did in this period, but the best part of it could easily have come about because somebody said (SPOILER ALERT) "and maybe the guy who takes Ben's body to kill Reed comes to respect Reed and even sacrifices himself to save him". Marvel had done that story before, as well. It meshed with this new story very nicely, but that kind of simple and somewhat vague but still significant sort of suggestion is just the sort of thing Stan did all the time in fleshing out concepts and stories. Doesn't mean Kirby couldn't have thought of it on his own. As for the Surfer, Stan said (and Kirby never disputed) that when he saw the FF48 pages and asked what's with the guy on the surfboard, Kirby famously responded with "I thought Galactus should have a herald." A "herald". Neither Stan nor Jack ever said that Kirby described his character as anything more. Neither Stan nor Jack ever said that Kirby described the character he'd drawn for FF48 as "an alien who works for Galactus; He sacrificed himself to save his home planet by becoming Galactus' herald and helping him destroy other planets instead of his own, but in the next issue he's going to meet Alicia who will touch his heart and convince him to go against Galactus, who will retaliate by imprisoning him on Earth". That's a good bit more than "a herald". Not saying that Jack contributed nothing beyond that as character development. But I think re the Surfer, as in all things Lee and Kirby did together, it is safe and appropriate to use the Lennon-McCartney credits method and bill them all as creations by "Lee and Kirby"
  10. I bought a Peanuts daily when they were just a couple grand, thinking my wife would like it and I'd buy a lot more for investments that she would also enjoy. But she shrugged it off and I didn't buy any more.
  11. Fan disputes about who-did-what are sometimes very interesting, especially when they show the attention to detail this one did. As for repeating stories, that was done all. the. time. If you look at the Archie titles plots were recycled so much you had to wonder if they were simply reusing the scripts and changing the names -- or not, changing them and just drawing it all over again. Marvel and DC would use the same superhero plots not just within a short window but often simultaneously. Sometimes they are a good peek into the process and the give and take between artist and writer. Ditko prevailed over Lee with his insistence that the bird-based villain in Spidey 2 be a thin vulture, while Stan, who'd wanted it to be a fatter bird, simply did so with the Owl in Daredevil. What I find most interesting in fan disputes is how the arguments can go reasonable to batsj#t looney within a heartbeat. Like the one that started this thread. Guy makes some interesting and thoughtful points but also goes off into a histrionic ditch with the assertion that Lee's entire reputation rests upon the story in FF51. The same people who insist that Ditko actually did more to create Spider-man than just "the original idea" will say that the Silver Surfer is "100% Kirby" because he had the original idea. Yeah, he also drew it, but in FF48 the surfer was just one of the alien minions who worked for Galactus. Lee latched onto him and insisted on fleshing him out, giving him character motivations and a back story, etc. Basically, people embrace a contradiction and want to have it both ways when they say the original idea means nothing (or close to it) when it's known Lee had the original idea but it means everything when it's known Kirby had the original idea. And of course the biggest reason everybody knows the surfer was kirby's idea is that Stan immediately told everybody they hadn't talked about it before showed up, and he repeated that story many times over the years. Yet people who repeat the story also repeat their assertions that Lee never gave kirby credit for his story/plot/character input. Reminds me of the guy who is on such a holy crusade against Bob Kane that he is unable to acknowledge that Kane did anything. Anything. at. all. in the creation of Batman. He cites the story of Detective 27 as being copied from an earlier source and says it was Bill Finger who stole the idea -- ironically saying that Bill Finger's theft of the story is proof that Kane, not Finger, was a plagiarist. Fandom is great, but sometimes a chill pill is in order.
  12. Rather than disincentivizing by punishing folk who break them up I would prefer to see people incentivized to keep stories whole (or making them whole by assembling all pages) because the biggest players put more value on them. But so far they haven't. We see the same thing happening with the biggest key comics. If it's at all incomplete or tainted by resto, the market hammers the value so much that if you're motivated by what you can get from it you may as well tear apart what you have, be it incomplete or restored, because the parts will be worth more. If that happens in the comics market, then it's all the more likely to happen with art, because a complete comic you can hold and appreciate in one hand. People appreciate art mostly by displaying it, and few people have the room as well as the desire to put an entire story on the wall. I would be inclined a bit toward the whole story thing because I like to see a completed thought in a display. So pages that are, for lack of a better word, self-contained, appeal to me more. Not necessarily an entire story but a whole "beat" of the story. Artists often do break up their story beats, sometimes all on one page and more often on several pages. (Though I've noticed Kirby, more often than others, would sometimes carry the final panel of a particular "beat" or sequence into the next page). It seems to be something Kirby did instinctively, if not deliberately, to set up the next beat. He would do this not just with a sequence within a comic but sometimes with the whole story. Many artists and writers would "tease" the next week's story, like having a villain appear in the final panel or page. But Kirby would sometimes wrap up the main story well before the book was over and present several pages of the next story (or even half the story) in the final part of the book. I got off on a tangent there, but I guess my rambling sort of makes the point that even if you have all the pages to an entire book, when you're talking about Marvel pages and KIrby in particular it doesn't necessarily mean you have an entire story, or even a self-contained chapter of a story.