Lee versus Kirby and Ditko

[nmtg9]

I know this has been discussed many times but i am thinking about it now - with Avengers and Spidey films out - and Lee in both I think, what is the real story?

 

I doubt we will ever know, but both Kirby and Ditko state they created the silver age characters and Lee said it came from him.

 

What does your gut tell you?

 

Personally, I like to think they all had a say but i worry the truth is different and there are people, alive and dead who will never get the credit they deserve.

[Whizzer]

This has been discussed here in the last week and the one thing I can say with some certainty is that nothing new is likely to come up here in the near future.

 

Viewpoints on this subject seem to be pretty entrenched and people are not minded to change their opinion in either direction.

 

My own view is that the bullpen was a collaborative environment in the early days, and failing memories and bruised egos have come into play in the intervening years.

 

To my mind it isn't as clear cut as the Bob Kane situation, where too many people have said the same things re the involvement of Finger, Robinson et al.

 

For every Kirby and Ditko advocate such as Evanier, there is a Shooter or Romita standing up for Stan.

 

Unless some concrete documentary evidence comes to light, this is just going to be the same old, same old I'm afraid.

[TheWatcher]

In a nutshell: Neither one (Lee/Kirby nor Lee/Ditko) would've been as good without the other, and this coming from a huge Kibry & Ditko fan

[Whizzer]

In a nutshell: Neither one (Lee/Kirby nor Lee/Ditko) would've been as good without the other, and this coming from a huge Kibry & Ditko fan

 

 

Concise and dead on the money.

[rodan57]

In a nutshell: Neither one (Lee/Kirby nor Lee/Ditko) would've been as good without the other, and this coming from a huge Kibry & Ditko fan

 

 

Concise and dead on the money.

 

I agree.

[MedicAR]

TheWatcher hit it on the head. None of them were as successful before they collaborated and none of them were as successful after. However it happened, it was pure magic as the sum was clearly greater than its parts.

 

Kirby and Ditko did tons of work before they teamed with Lee. How many people talk about how great Kirby's run on Prize was? How many talk about Ditko's work on Crime and Justice? And Stan Lee was just rehashing about two dozen horror stories over and over. When they got together, though, it was amazing in every way! What has come since? Silver Star, Avenging World and Ravage 2099.

 

Whatever happened, it never happened again for any of them. Just share the credit and call it good.

[Prince Namor]

In a nutshell: Neither one (Lee/Kirby nor Lee/Ditko) would've been as good without the other, and this coming from a huge Kibry & Ditko fan

 

 

Concise and dead on the money.

 

I agree with this 100%.

However, I will say that Stan's involvement in the creation process has probably been over hyped by himself to some degree. And I only say that because of the lack of examples of much of anything he created without Kirby or Ditko.

HOWEVER, Lee DID continue to write the ASM without Ditko, and even though there weren't very many classic villians created, comparatively over that stretch, it still remains the greatest consecutive 100 issue run of any superhero comic ever. And 61% of that was without Ditko.

 

But let's look at it like this.

If Stan says, "Let's do a story with a villIan who is a gangster. He calls himself the Kingpin. He's massive in size and controls the criminal underground with lots of thugs who work for him. See what you can do with that Jazzy."

And then John creates the look, the costume (or suit), plots out a story, draws it, writes basic dialogue around the panels and sends it in... Do you believe, IN THEORY, disregarding the 'business model', that the creative process is equal?

Discuss.

[homerwannabee]

I am pretty sure Lee was really involved in the process. The clue is the Amazing

Spider-man early drafts that were donated to the Library of Congress. In it, there were many notes written down by Stan Lee, in which he felt needed to be changed or fixed. The notes prove that he was hands on in the creative process, and that the comics would be completely different had he not have been around.

[brendanb438]

I am sorry but these clowns ain't got nuffin on Tony Moore and his mad skillz.

 

 

Spiderman, Avengers, these be nothing if it wasn't for Tony Moore. Mr. Moore needs to sue Marvel for everything they are worth!!

[Speedy-D]

It seems prertty clear to me: Lee deserves less credit than he gives himself, his artists deserve more credit than he gives them.

The characters and stories of the Marvel SA were team efforts, and would not have been the same were any of the players changed.

[Dr. Balls]

I am sorry but these clowns ain't got nuffin on Tony Moore and his mad skillz.

 

 

Spiderman, Avengers, these be nothing if it wasn't for Tony Moore. Mr. Moore needs to sue Marvel for everything they are worth!!

 

 

[TheWatcher]

If Stan says, "Let's do a story with a villIan who is a gangster. He calls himself the Kingpin. He's massive in size and controls the criminal underground with lots of thugs who work for him. See what you can do with that Jazzy."

And then John creates the look, the costume (or suit), plots out a story, draws it, writes basic dialogue around the panels and sends it in... Do you believe, IN THEORY, disregarding the 'business model', that the creative process is equal?

Discuss.

 

My heart says "no", but my brain says "yes". Who knows what the Kingpin would've been like if written by Romita. Possibly completely different than the way we know him today. Stan has to get at least half the credit for fleshing out the character the way he did. Another example would be the Silver Surfer. Kirby, who even Stan Lee credits with creating the character, envisioned him much differently than Stan. Would the Kirby version of the SS have been nearly as popular as Stan's interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. My guess would be probably not. So sometimes Stan should be given more credit and sometimes Kirby/Ditko/Romita should. My

[Forbush-Man]

My feeling (which comes from observing Lee as Editor for 10+ years before the Silver Age, and Lee's work after the exit of both Kirby & Ditko, is that the creative process was from Kirby & Ditko. Lee, to his credit, was an excellent story teller. It was the combination that worked.

 

Lee was the Paul McCartney to Kirby's Lennon and Ditko's Harrison, if you will.

[Prince Namor]

It seems prertty clear to me: Lee deserves less credit than he gives himself, his artists deserve more credit than he gives them.

The characters and stories of the Marvel SA were team efforts, and would not have been the same were any of the players changed.

My heart says "no", but my brain says "yes". Who knows what the Kingpin would've been like if written by Romita. Possibly completely different than the way we know him today. Stan has to get at least half the credit for fleshing out the character the way he did. Another example would be the Silver Surfer. Kirby, who even Stan Lee credits with creating the character, envisioned him much differently than Stan. Would the Kirby version of the SS have been nearly as popular as Stan's interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. My guess would be probably not. So sometimes Stan should be given more credit and sometimes Kirby/Ditko/Romita should. My

 

I can't necessarily disagree with either of these comments, despite that they come from different sides....

[Prince Namor]

TheWatcher hit it on the head. None of them were as successful before they collaborated and none of them were as successful after. However it happened, it was pure magic as the sum was clearly greater than its parts.

 

Kirby and Ditko did tons of work before they teamed with Lee. How many people talk about how great Kirby's run on Prize was? How many talk about Ditko's work on Crime and Justice? And Stan Lee was just rehashing about two dozen horror stories over and over. When they got together, though, it was amazing in every way! What has come since? Silver Star, Avenging World and Ravage 2099.

 

Whatever happened, it never happened again for any of them. Just share the credit and call it good.

 

Ditko was still somewhat of newer face in the business, but Kirby had experienced a great deal of success prior to the SA, most notably the creation of Captain America (with Joe Simon) which had nothing to do with Stan....

[DeliBebek]

I don't pay much attention to what any of the parties have said, but I look at the stories Stan Lee did with Don Heck (Iron Man, Avengers) and the difference between them and Stan's stories that were drawn by Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko is pretty noteworthy. I think that difference demonstrates the kind of input that other artists had on their respective titles. Daredevil is also a good example of a character struggling for identity, in a way that Spider-Man didn't struggle (as a character). Whatever Stan was putting into his collaboration with Kirby and Ditko, he wasn't putting into his collaborations with Heck and Everett.

 

The question can become a philosophical discussion about the nature of creation. One person decides to resurrect a name, but make a couple of changes to it (Daredevil, for example) and the person who draws it adds some touches as well (what touches we can't guess all these years later) but somewhere in the middle, the image of who the character is and what they are about coalesces into the heart of the character which endures.

 

Stan seems to think that resurrecting a name and putting a few thoughts into it is the whole of creation. Other people disagree.

 

Stan may have been the best editor/editor-in-chief in the history of comics because of how he took that little corner of Goodman's business and build the foundation of a major entertainment property. I think it's only in the past 5 to 10 years that Marvel has become what Stan envisioned it could become since the late '60s.

 

What his role was in creating the creations is ultimately not as important as where he took them.

[Prince Namor]

I am pretty sure Lee was really involved in the process. The clue is the Amazing

Spider-man early drafts that were donated to the Library of Congress. In it, there were many notes written down by Stan Lee, in which he felt needed to be changed or fixed. The notes prove that he was hands on in the creative process, and that the comics would be completely different had he not have been around.

 

No question he had a hand in the process. Just questioning how much of it and how much credit does he deserve?

The notes he donated could've easily come after the art was done and he made story adjustments. A creative part of the process, but certainly a different kind of creative part of the process...

[TheWatcher]

I am pretty sure Lee was really involved in the process. The clue is the Amazing

Spider-man early drafts that were donated to the Library of Congress. In it, there were many notes written down by Stan Lee, in which he felt needed to be changed or fixed. The notes prove that he was hands on in the creative process, and that the comics would be completely different had he not have been around.

 

No question he had a hand in the process. Just questioning how much of it and how much credit does he deserve?

The notes he donated could've easily come after the art was done and he made story adjustments. A creative part of the process, but certainly a different kind of creative part of the process...

 

I've read/heard Stan Lee say that when Marvel expanded its titles, and his time was even more in demand, he would give Kirby et al minimal plot ideas like "Have the FF battle Dr Doom" or let Kirby flesh out the plot on his own. Stan would then go in and develop the plot as written (by the artist) or move it in the direction he wanted via the dialogue. You can see this firsthand in issues of the Jack Kirby Collector where they reproduce Kirby's FF, Thor, etc pages with his margin notes intact. It's very interesting to read Kirby's notes and then read how Stan interpreted them, sometimes being completely different from what Kirby intended

[supapimp]

My feeling (which comes from observing Lee as Editor for 10+ years before the Silver Age, and Lee's work after the exit of both Kirby & Ditko, is that the creative process was from Kirby & Ditko. Lee, to his credit, was an excellent story teller. It was the combination that worked.

 

Lee was the Paul McCartney to Kirby's Lennon and Ditko's Harrison, if you will.

 

stan was more like ringo.

[KirbyJack]

Stan's contributions shouldn't be given short shrift. The outline of Fantastic Four #1 that Stan wrote should be evidence enough that he generated his share of the ideas. Even staunch Kirby supporters like Mark Evanier and John Morrow have called for an end to the Stan Bashing.

I love them all, and I don't need a score card telling me who did what. The evidence indicates that it was a true collaboration.

As to the question of compensation, there's no question that the artists should have been treated better, but I'd say the villain is Goodman.