Tweet
Excellent news, one of my favorite comic book artists. Too bad he isn't around to share all those movie cameos with Stan Lee. Jack certainly deserved it.
-
-
Well, holy cow. I never thought we'd see the day. It's about damn time.
If you know anything about Kirby, his depression-era upbringing made him fear he would one day lose all he had, and wouldn't be able to support his family. He made some stupid business decisions over the years, playing it safe in the hopes he would keep his job and he would eventually be rewarded for his contributions. It's nice to hear his hard work finally will pay off for his family financially.
Disney/Marvel was smart to do this. It creates some good will amongst comic fans for sure. And it's just the right thing to do.
Chris -
Fantastic news and totally shocking. I really hope the Kirby's got something substantial from the settlement - though we'll never know.
I'm a HUGE Kirby fan, so I'm really hoping to see Marvel using his name more prominently and building his legacy in the popular consciousness. I'm always amazed and depressed when I talk to comic fans who don't know who Kirby is.Comment
-
A little more on the legal battle here:
I'm a bit torn on these types of things. I feel, in some ways, the heirs of Siegel and Shuster were being greedy in their constant pursuit for more money, ownership, etc., because WB was already paying them quite handsomely when they filed their last suit against them . But Kirby's family was getting NOTHING. It as a crime, and I'm glad it's been resolved to their satisfaction.
ChrisComment
-
Even if The Supreme Court passed, marvel would have had to settle. But by settling beforehand, it shows they were after money. There's no more film credit Marvel can give Kirby, he gets a co-creator in every film on every character he came up with. They could have ended up with partial ownership of Marvel.Comment
-
Am I missing something here?? It doesn't state what the settlement is. I'm curious to see what that is. The statement from Marvel means absolutely nothing in my opinion because there is nothing attached to what was the agreement with the Kirby Estate. Personally I am getting really tired of seeing Stan's face. After seeing things like the British Ditko documentary it makes me dislike Stan more and more. Couldn't even acknowledge that Ditko was co-creator of Spider-Man. Love to see tangible evidence of the settlement between Marvel and the Kirby Estate...Then I will believe it.Comment
-
From what I know, a condition of the settlement was that the settlement details would not be disclosed - so we may never know. If that's the case it seems fairly standard from other cases I've followed.Comment
-
"Berto, If MARVEL - The Untold Story by Sean Howe is accurate, and I think it is well researched, Steve Ditko is akin to a cult follower of a philosophy, (Randian Objectivism), which is very inflexible and does not allow for co-creators. Ditko was a great artist and plotter but the more I learn about him he seems like a squirrely loon. Lee is no angel but it seems to me Ditko stepped off the seep end years ago.Comment
-
Yes, that very often is what happens in cases like these, so we may never know the details. But if the Kirby family was willing to settle, hopefully it was due to something substantial.Originally posted by BrazooComment
-
I think Stan Lee always gets a very bad rap in all this stuff. He went out of his way to credit everyone who worked on those early Marvel books, right down to the letterer. If you look at any of the collected editions as far back as the 1970's, Stan ALWAYS gave credit where credit was due. It was not up to him what Kirby, or Ditko, or anyone else got paid or what their contracts were.
Where was Steve Ditko when the first Spider-Man film came out 12 years ago? He could have made a small fortune hitting the talk show circuit, attending premieres, etc. He chooses NOT to stand in the spotlight. Lee does, and I can't fault the man for that.
His contributions to comics still exceed any other creator in history. What did Siegel and Shuster do after Superman? Nothing. What did Bob Kane do after Batman? Nothing. Whether you want to say Lee created or co-created, name one other person in comics with as many successful characters. There aren't any even close. Spider-Man, Hulk, FF, Daredevil, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men, Dr. Strange...that's a helluva lot of creative output.
Had Stan quit Marvel as he originally intended to in 1962 would Kirby or Ditko have come up with all those characters? I highly doubt it. You see, whether it's Lee and Kirby, or Lee and Ditko, the common denominator in the equation is Stan Lee.Last edited by enyawd72; Sep 27, '14, 12:19 AM.Comment
-
We'll never get the details. Marvel made the announcement because Disney has shareholders and it's a way to put the case to bed.
I love Ditko, but he went overboard. You see signs acknowledging that it gets to him when he releases Op-Ed's. The Objectivist belief is to spend no time reflecting backwards as it stops creative momentum going forward, but the Spidey movies irritated the hell out of him.
and I've always been where Dwayne's at; Stan stirred the drink. Kirby proved post-Marvel that without an editor his great ideas were lost amid insanity. There's a lot of revisionism when it comes to Kirby, some from him but most from Evanier. For example, the late 70's claim that Asgard was always supposed to be an alien race, is nonsense influenced by Chariot of The Gods with a little Star Wars jealousy.Comment
-
I have to agree with you guys on Stan Lee, there is always a strong tendency in the comics industry to completely side with the guy who didn't get rich. Not to say I don't love Kirby and think that he was owed a little something. Acknowledging Lee's contributions doesn't belittle the others, pairing him with Ditko or Kirby was dynamite.
For the past five years I've been involved with a massive lawsuit in publishing. I can't divulge much but the one side claimed they created absolutely everything. While researching, I found hand drawn cover sketches, title proposals and piles of layouts from my client dating back to day one that prove he was instrumental in their success. The other side's legal team made it as if he never had a good idea. It was really upsetting and a lot people chose to believe it.Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions
Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shopComment
-
I'm glad the Kirby's and Marvel settled. Now, the focus can turn from the fight over rights back to to his work both with and without Lee. I belive 2017 is the 100th anniversary of Kirby's birth. It would be cool if that could be celebrated without animosity.Comment
-
My point about Stan wasn't a monetary point...it was a point about how Stan thinks that because he had the idea for a character, and NOT THE DESIGN/ART for a character or characters, he thinks that he is the sole creator of the Marvel characters like Spider-Man. He couldn't even say it on the Ditko Documentary. I understand the whole work for hire situation, that's all fine and legal, but to not even acknowledge the fact that someone had a hand in the characters is just plain old WRONG. If there weren't these lawsuits I can guarantee you that all of the films would say Stan Lee as creator of all the Marvel Comics movies. Ditkos's belief in Objectivism should have no bearing on Stan's inability to acknowledge that Ditko was a co-creator of Spider-Man as well as co-creator of Dr. Strange for that fact...and he's done neither.
As far as the settlement from Marvel/Disney is concerned...I will wait to see what happens in the future as far as maybe some sort of acknowledgement of Kirby in print on their comic books. Haven't seen it yet with the exception of Galactic Bounty Hunters which was a Marvel Imprint book/series.Comment
Comment