home

Kirby always said he created the stories Patrick Ford 22 September 2016 https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/2015/06/16/interviews/ Remedial reading for the confused should start with Michael Hill's "Interviews" article at the Kirby Museum's KIRBY EFFECT. Mike meticulously documents the fact that contrary to the collective MMMS wisdom the truth is Kirby during the '60s was describing his Silver Age work for Marvel in the same way he described it in later interviews including the Gary Groth interview in TCJ. Patrick Ford: It's particularly interesting to carefully read Kirby's 1969 interview with Mark Herbert where Kirby directly says that he not only created the Marvel heroes, but that he was the person who was "harping" on Lee to give the genre a try. Kirby specifically mentions his work on The Fly. A character which Kirby presented to Lee as Spider-Man. Patrick Ford: "I was involved in The Fly, and because of that I told Stan that there might be hope for superheroes. I kept harping on it..." Ferran Delgado: 1969 was the year before he left Marvel when he was holding his ideas and creations because he felt ignored by the new owners and felt it was unfair the focus on Lee as the only creator. Patrick Ford: That's true. Kirby was saying those things during the '60s while still selling his stories to Marvel. Comic book historians and journalists constantly attempt to make it sound as if Kirby made comments in the Groth interview which were unlike things he said in the past. Michael Hill's documentation shows that to be wrong. Ferran Delgado: From the files of Whatifkirby.com, a balloon darkened of FF #3 page 5. You can see clearly Lee's writing under the lettering. I can't believe that I'm defending Lee, but at least, he scripted. So the claim that Lee did nothing is not accurate. [Editor's note: this sequence was the villain monolog added by Lee. The large arrow on the back of the page shows how the monolog was not in Kirby's original script. Good writers do not use vilain monologs, a practice parodied in the Incredibles movie.] Patrick Ford: Kirby had a completely different definition of script. As did Ditko. Both Ditko and Kirby called what they delivered to Lee a script. Aaron Noble: This makes it clear that when Jack says he "scripted" he is not denying that Stan (or someone) added dialogue. Patrick Ford: It might be important to note that when Kirby said Lee did not dialogue he had just been specifically asked about the "monster stories." It's been documented by Michael Vassallo that Lee didn't write and monster stories from 1956 until late 1961. There are plenty of other interviews where Kirby talked about Lee's dialogue and the direction in which Lee took Kirby's stories and characters. Ferran Delgado: I can see now where it was the misunderstanding. Patrick Ford: Here's the quote. GROTH: And you two collaborated on all the monster stories? KIRBY: Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything! I’ve never seen Stan Lee write anything. I used to write the stories just like I always did. GROTH: On all the monster stories it says “Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.” What did he do to warrant his name being on them? KIRBY: Nothing! OK? GROTH: Did he dialogue them? KIRBY: No, I dialogued them. If Stan Lee ever got a thing dialogued, he would get it from someone working in the office. I would write out the whole story on the back of every page. I would write the dialogue on the back or a description of what was going on. Then Stan Lee would hand them to some guy and he would write in the dialogue. In this way Stan Lee made more pay than he did as an editor. This is the way Stan Lee became the writer. Besides collecting the editor’s pay, he collected writer’s pay. I’m not saying Stan Lee had a bad business head on. I think he took advantage of whoever was working for him. Patrick Ford: And of course since Lee wrote at home Kirby never did see Lee write anything. And isn't it pretty logical that Kirby would think that since Lee was having Kirby supply stories and characters that Lee would also be having people in the office write the dialogue? Ditko has written extensively about his working method with Lee and Ditko always says he gave Lee a "dialogue panel script" on a sheet of typewriter paper along with the original art. Patrick Ford: I think many of Kirby's comments are taken out of context. For example Kirby said in the Tim Skelly TCJ interview that he never inked anything. Of course Kirby inked a lot of things in the '50s, but when Skelly asked the question they were talking about the Marvel super heroes of the '60s. Patrick Ford: The most annoying thing about Kirby/Lee discussions is the fact that Kirby is supposed to prove his statements where as Lee is taken at his word. I don't mean by everyone of course, but that is the consensus starting point. For example Kirby says at some point he wrote out the story on the back of the pages. How do we know he didn't? Kirby didn't have possession of his early Marvel art and what are the odds Marvel would return to him any pages which damaged Lee's (and Marvel's) version of events? I would place the possibility at absolute zero. Marvel would hide or even destroy any evidence which supports Kirby. One of the best examples being Kirby's Spider-Man pages and presentation art. Patrick Ford: Anyone who does not believe the consensus starting point for any discussion of Kirby and Lee should look at all of the recent articles which are somewhat critical of Lee. Everyone of them without exception accepts as fact that Lee gave Kirby at least some sort of basic character and plot ideas. Everyone of them accepts as fact Lee's claim that the Marvel Method came about because Lee was too busy to write full scripts. And so 99% of the argument supports Lee. At least from my point of view, because to me the person who came up with the basic undeveloped ideas is the only issue that matters. Ferran Delgado: «as Lee is taken at his word.» I disagree, or his books would be best-sellers. His upcoming film about his life is a joke, specially when Lee got sick of telling everybody about his awful memory. It'll be pure fantasy, even his faithful ones know it. Patrick Ford: Ferran, I mean just on the point of who came up with the basic plot and character ideas. On rather trivial matters Lee himself is known to project self-depreciation. Patrick Ford: This pattern is glaring and has been going on for years. What it boils down to is "everyone" (including Lee, Thomas and Romita) says that Kirby was "incredibly creative." Generally things stop there. Kirby has been described as "incredibly creative" and everyone is supposed to be happy. Where things become difficult is when someone asks what exactly it was that Kirby created. What are the names of the characters which Kirby brought to Lee. The Silver Surfer is mentioned. After that the list goes down to as Lee put it "a sexy bartender." Patrick Ford: One of the most amusing bits of Lee's 2010 deposition testimony comes when Marc Toberoff asks Lee which characters Kirby created. Lee goes into his usual bit about Kirby being incredibly creative and then goes off on a bit of a tangent, and ends by asking, "What was the question?" Patrick Ford: When asked again Lee says that all the "artists" were expected to create characters as part of their job. To explain this he says that if Lee sets a scene in a bar the artist is expected to create characters to populate the bar. Lee adds that if the artist draws a "sexy bartender" Lee might be interested enough to give the bartender some lines of dialogue. Patrick Ford: In other words the characters created by the artists are what film describes as "extras." The old drunk, the sexy bartender, the man asking for a Scotch, the woman with a Cosmopolitan. Michael Hill: Ferran, to paraphrase Steve Ditko, if Lee gets to claim bad memory, how is he allowed to claim credit for something he doesn't remember?

home