Jim Shooter on the Kirby Artwork Controversy

[samurainoir]

Jim Shooter: The Jack Kirby Artwork Return Controversy

This part is interesting, regarding Kirby's lawsuit against marvel back in the eighties...

The Kirby case ended when Marvel, in discovery, produced a number of documents, including several signed with Cadence Industries’ predecessor proving that Kirby had specifically agreed more than once in exchange for compensation (beyond the original payment for the work) that Marvel owned the work (art, characters, everything). One specifically listed every story Kirby ever did -- part of the proof Martin Goodman was required to provide that he owned what he was selling when he sold Marvel to Cadence, I believe. Kirby's lawyers were apparently unaware of the existence of these documents, apologized, and dropped the suit.

Which would probably be why the Kirby estate is playing the copyright reclamation angle on this.

[samurainoir]

The rest of Shooter's blog is pretty fascinating as well thus far... filling in the gaps between when he was Mort Weisinger's VunderKind as the teenage writer of Legion of Superheroes, to his ascent as Marvel Editor in Chief.

[Brazoo]

I always thought Jim Shooter was an unfortunate fall guy in that period. I actually buy his side of the story. I remember a Kirby Collector that printed almost this exact story - but with more focus on the artwork being returned as oppose to the ownership rights.

[Brazoo]

I never knew he had a blog - this is pretty cool!

[stevenlore]

Very interesting and informative. Glad to see that he's still in the comic busuness.

[samurainoir]

The stuff about how he was actually the bread winner of his family writing Legion of Superheroes as a teenager, while being verbally abused by Weisinger is positively Dickensian!

[Mego Superboy Prime]

Jim Shooter was always a nice guy when I met him.

[Brazoo]

Welp, I guess there's always two sides to every story:

When All Else Fails | The Comics Journal

In the comments under the blog entry one of the site moderators says that Gary Groth is working on a rebuttal to Shooters claims.

Off hand, to me everything Shooter says seems logical - but it will be interesting to hear another opinion.

[samurainoir]

Now that The Comics Journal archives are available online, it should make for some interesting reading to go back and look at the snapshots of that time.

Kirby received the form in August of 1984 and, over the months that followed, he attempted to negotiate some form of compromise with Marvel Editor in Chief Jim Shooter, asking that a more thorough list be compiled of the original Kirby art in Marvel's possession and offering to send a representative to assist the company in cataloging the materials. Shooter refused all such requests, explaining in a Jan. 25 letter to Kirby that it would be "unfair" to single Kirby's art out for special treatment -- though he apparently saw nothing unfair in devising a release form that targeted Kirby exclusively. Marvel's position remained firm that the artist must sign the four-page document in its entirety or he would receive no art back.

What's pretty clear though is that the current Kirby suite would have to be based on copyright reclamation given the existence of these signed documents...

And once again, Evanier weighs in...
[IMG]I will say that I think it's a bum rap to give Jim Shooter the blame for Kirby's art not being returned. As far as I can see, he had very little to do with that situation and probably did, at some point, try very hard to get Jack's art sent back to him, if only to abate a colossal embarrassment to the company. But his version of who did what and why does not correspond to my understanding.[/IMG]

[samurainoir]

I know Archie Goodwin and Shooter didn't really have a great relationship (Goodwin essentially was demoted from EIC to make way for Shooter), however I do think Shooter really needs to to give more props to Goodwin regarding creator rights at Marvel given the fact that he spearheaded Epic.

[Brazoo]

The move from Goodwin to Shooter is interesting. I don't know a ton about either of them really - but it's interesting that they went from a guy all the artists seemed to have loved to a guy everyone hated.

Out of curiosity would you attribute Goodwin or Shooter more for the success of Marvel in the 80s? Was it a mix of both influences? Was the EIC position integral to the second Marvel boom era?

[samurainoir]

Goodwin was out of the EIC seat by the time the eighties rolled around, and EIC's at Marvel in the seventies were pretty much Spinal Tap drummers. Who DIDN'T occupy that chair at one time or another... Marv Wolfman, Len Wein, Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin all came and went in short succession.

My understanding is that Shooter was a good balance between creativity and business and that was his strength during the decade long tenure. You can't really attribute one man with the success of something like Marvel, but it was under his run that Frank Miller, Chris Claremont, John Byrne and Walt Simonson were able to do really breakthrough stuff on X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Thor etc. and Marvel did top the sales charts until DC began their post Crisis run for the top spot which they eventually took in the nineties for a window during the mess of Marvel's Comic Wars (and that was due to DC's aggressive trade paperback program vs Marvel's shiny cover program).

Goodwin's situation was fascinating and unique... what do you do with a guy you demoted and replaced with a twenty something kid? Marvel's solution was rather elegent... they gave him his own fiefdom in the form of Epic.

The precursor to all of this was the undergrounds, "creator owned" newspaper strips by top talents like Alex Raymond and Milt Caniff (see Dave Sim's Glamourpuss!), Metal Hurlant/Heavy Metal, and of course the new "indies" taking advantage of direct market distribution... companies like Capital, Pacific, Eclipse, Continuity, Comico and so many others that eventually fell by the wayside (only Dark Horse is really remains and they came in during the B&W boom) etc.

Those indies and Heavy Metal gave top tier talent like Jim Starlin, Steve Gerber, and Jack Kirby complete ownership of their work.

Marvel had a number of experiments of varying success on the magazine rack... including one that competed with the the Undergrounds, called Comix Book. Epic Magazine was their version of Heavy Metal.

From there, Goodwin launched his own line of direct market, creator owned titles, also called Epic. However, for most of us, our first encounter with Epic was a trio of newsstand titles... Groo the Wonderer, Dreadstar and Elf Quest (reprinting/continuing three of the most popular indie titles from the direct market).

As a kid, I wouldn't have been able to discern that these were creator owned... just that Marvel had some new titles that seemed a bit edgier. But once I found a hobby store that carried direct market titles... a whole new world of indie stuff opened up to me. Free from the comics code, and often exploring genres that mainstream Big Two titles that had been neglected in the eighties (horror, fantasy, scifi)... or more often than not, superhero titles that pushed the envelope (Badger, Nexus, Marshal Law, Elementals).

Epic of course is now only a footnote in comics history... a casualty of Marvel's Comic Wars... why was Marvel publishing comics where they held no merchandising/licensing/movie rights? (I believe Alien Legion was the poster child) Although Goodwin had already fled Marvel before Epic sank.

It's arguable that the spirit of Goodwin's Epic lives on in Vertigo. He was given a certain amount of freedom to dabble in the different fiefdom's when he arrived at DC and he even brought Epic's Moonshadow to Vertigo. Vertigo was at the time the Dark Fantasy corner of DC, but increasingly whether due to Goodwin or not, their output seemed to diversify so that it did appear more like diversity of titles Epic put out.

[samurainoir]

My favourite Epic titles...




(what if Sherlock Holmes were an Alien and Watson a prostitute?)




Judge Dredd polices Superheroes


based on a rejected Hawkman proposal! I think Geoff Johns/James Robinson owes much of their take on this one.

[Brazoo]

I'm probably getting my timelines all mixed up. I thought X-men was rebooted under Goodwin's watch (looking it up now it seems even earlier) and the big 80s guys (Miller, Byrne, Claremont etc.) were hired before Shooter took over.

I guess I wondered if people attributed Goodwin (or even someone else) for building the blocks that would lead to Shooter's success in the 80s, since he has so many detractors.

Like, I would get it if people thought of Shooter as a jerk personally - but in terms of being a successful editor...

[samurainoir]

Jim Shooter got the big chair in 1978. He obviously doesn't oversee the titles directly, but you have to give him credit for an environment where these guys did their best work (whether they felt that way or not... see Byrne's caricature of Shooter in Legends).

Even if their hire dates precede that, Miller was on Daredevil full chores starting in 1981.

Jim Shooter was in fact the reason why The Dark Phoenix Saga had a finale with such impact... he stepped in and demanded Jean Grey pay the price for her crimes after Claremont and Byrne handed in their original pages... where Jean Grey was depowered and lived!

But much of it despite the huge "misses" like The New Universe, Shooter's reign can become entirely subjective... was the Media/Toy Tie in Craze "good" or "bad". For the dozens of Dazzler, US 1 and Crystar, you've got fans of GI Joe, Transformers and Micronauts (and even ROM) who say otherwise.

Secret Wars kicked off the Big Event Book together with the Toy Tie In which even now was a huge influence given how DC handles Blackest Night. Many fans voting with their dollars think the Big Event is terrific, while some decry it to be the huge failing of the industry.

One thing to argue is the fact that he did make lightning strike twice... with the run away success of Valiant (but that is an entirely different can of worms).

I'm neither a detractor nor booster of Shooter's. I'm fairly indifferent to his creative work and editorial output, but I do find his personal story within the comics industry fascinating to follow.


On the other hand, I am a big ol' fanboy when it comes to Archie Goodwin, both as a creator and editor. I do believe his biggest legacies are less from his incredibly short tenure as Marvel EIC, and more for his contributions to the Warren publications (particularly Vampirella), Marvel's Epic Imprint, and various books that sprang under his editorial guidence at DC (Starman, Batman Long Halloween).

Plus Star Wars.

Although perhaps fans of Goodwin's seventies Marvel work would disagree (I honestly can't think of any standouts off the top of my head... his Manhunter with Walt Simonson was for DC).

While in charge of Epic, Goodwin also brought the work of Moebius to a North American audience (building on his Heavy Metal exposure) as well as many of our first experiences with manga... in the form of Akira! (I vividly recall Marvel Marketing desperately trying to sell this as Japan's answer to the X-Men).